Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nsantos/fc7/servletapi4.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nsantos/fc7/servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp.src.rpm Description: Java servlet and JSP implementation classes
Updated specfile and srpm: Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/nsantos/fc7/servletapi4.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/nsantos/fc7/servletapi4-4.0.4-1.fc7.src.rpm
servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK - package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency NO * specfile should be %{name}.spec ---> it is named: servletapi4.spec but it should be servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK - is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? ?? * OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware ?? * is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK - license field matches the actual license. OK - license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah OK - skim the summary and description for typos, etc. NO * correct buildroot should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) --> it is /jakarta-servletapi-4-src/ NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc --> included but not marked with %doc: OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) NO * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) --> The rpm does not contain /lib (not sure this is normal) NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there --> Cannot install source packages. No packages were given for installation. OK - changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) NO * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement --> Those fields must be changed Name: %{name} Version: %{version} Release: %{release}.1%{?dist} ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 ?? * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which OK - summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK - description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK - make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK - specfile written in American English OK - make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA - packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK - don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? ?? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install ?? * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates ?? * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present ?? * %clean should be present NA * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc --> included but not marked with %doc: ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock
> NO * specfile should be %{name}.spec ---> it is named: servletapi4.spec but it should be servletapi4-4.0.4-4jpp.spec This is OK, %name refers just to the package name. No version/release should be included in the specfile name. > ?? * OSI-approved It's an Apache license, so it's OK. > ?? * is it covered by patents? Distributed under Apache license, no explicit references to patents, so to the best of our knowledge it's OK. > ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches > do) To verify source/patches, follow instructions to obtain source and package it, then run "md5sum" against the resulting tarfile, and compare to the tarfile included in the srpm, they should match. FWIW, md5sum on the tarfile in the srpm is: 91a4aeec8409a427c6a3b6d50924c15d jakarta-servletapi-4-src.tar.gz > NO * correct buildroot should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) --> it is /jakarta-servletapi-4-src/ This is OK, buildroot in specfile is (see line 54): BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) > NA * if %{?dist} is used dist is being used (see line 41): Release: %{release}%{?dist} > NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc --> included but not marked with %doc: It's marked with %doc, see line 111: %doc LICENSE README.txt > NO * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) --> The rpm does not contain /lib (not sure this is normal) It's OK. > NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output --> Cannot install source packages. srpm doesn't need to be installed, just run rpmlint on it directly: $ rpmlint servletapi4-4.0.4-1.fc7.src.rpm W: servletapi4 non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic Content W: servletapi4 unversioned-explicit-obsoletes servlet4 W: servletapi4 unversioned-explicit-obsoletes servlet23 W: servletapi4 unversioned-explicit-provides servlet W: servletapi4 unversioned-explicit-provides servlet4 W: servletapi4 unversioned-explicit-provides servlet23 These warnings are OK (other packages were approved with similar warnings). > NO * specfile is legible --> Those fields must be changed > Name: %{name} > Version: %{version} > Release: %{release}.1%{?dist} Using the macros allows for name/version/release to be referred to later in the specfile. > ?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > ?? * BuildRequires are proper You'll have to setup mock and try to build the package there, to verify that it builds. > ?? * use macros appropriately and consistently Usage is consistent to other packages that have been approved. > ?? * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps It's used e.g. in line 98: cp -pr build/docs/api/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name} > ?? * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present defattrs present (see lines 110, 115): %defattr(-,root,root) > ?? * %clean should be present Present (see lines 78/79): %clean rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > ?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs > ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > ?? * package should build on i386 > ?? * package should build in mock See comment above about setting up mock. FWIW, here's the provides, requires, and rpmlint for the binary rpm: $ rpm -qp servletapi4-4.0.4-1.fc7.noarch.rpm --provides servlet servlet23 servlet4 servletapi4 = 0:4.0.4-1.fc7 $ rpm -qp servletapi4-4.0.4-1.fc7.noarch.rpm --requires /bin/sh /bin/sh /usr/sbin/update-alternatives /usr/sbin/update-alternatives rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 $ rpmlint servletapi4-4.0.4-1.fc7.noarch.rpm W: servletapi4 non-standard-group Internet/WWW/Dynamic Content
@Nuno & @Arnaud Are you folks interested in continuing? This would be closed if no information is provided soon.
I'm closing the ticket as it's not relevant anymore, thank you for the reminder.