Bug 236504 - Review Request: rhm - Red Hat Messaging extensions to qpid.
Review Request: rhm - Red Hat Messaging extensions to qpid.
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Nuno Santos
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-04-15 11:42 EDT by Alan Conway
Modified: 2013-09-12 18:09 EDT (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-04-17 17:18:44 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
nsantos: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Alan Conway 2007-04-15 11:42:49 EDT
Spec URL: http://rhm.et.redhat.com/download/rhm.spec
SRPM URL: http://rhm.et.redhat.com/download/rhm-0.1-1.src.rpm
Description: Red Hat Messaging - Red Hat extensions to Qpid messaging system.

This package contains extensions to the Qpid messaging system (http://cwiki.apache.org/qpid) This release contains a persistent message
store extension using Berkley DB.
Comment 1 Nuno Santos 2007-04-16 21:32:09 EDT
rhm-0.1-1.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
OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec
NA - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
   something)
NA - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
NA - 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?
OK - OSI-approved
OK - not a kernel module
OK - not shareware
OK - 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
OK * specfile name matches %{name}
OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK * correct buildroot
OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
OK * changelog should be in one of these formats:
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
OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK * specfile is legible
OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
OK * BuildRequires are proper
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
NA * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
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
OK * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK * use macros appropriately and consistently
OK * don't use %makeinstall
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
NA * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK * package should probably not be relocatable
OK * package contains code
OK * package should own all directories and files
OK * there should be no %files duplicates
OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK * %clean should be present
OK * %doc files should not affect runtime
NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs

--
[nsantos@qpid-test pkg]$ rpm -qp
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/rhm-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm --provides
libbdbstore.so.0()(64bit)
rhm = 0.1-1

[nsantos@qpid-test pkg]$ rpm -qp
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/rhm-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm --requires
/sbin/ldconfig
/sbin/ldconfig
/sbin/service
/sbin/service
db4
libapr-1.so.0()(64bit)
libbdbstore.so.0()(64bit)
libc.so.6()(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit)
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.4)(64bit)
libcrypt.so.1()(64bit)
libdb_cxx-4.3.so()(64bit)
libdl.so.2()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
libm.so.6()(64bit)
libpthread.so.0()(64bit)
libqpidbroker.so.0()(64bit)
librt.so.1()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6()(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(CXXABI_1.3)(64bit)
libstdc++.so.6(GLIBCXX_3.4)(64bit)
libuuid.so.1()(64bit)
qpidd
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
--

OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs

--
[nsantos@qpid-test pkg]$ rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/rhm-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm
[nsantos@qpid-test pkg]$ rpmlint
/usr/src/redhat/RPMS/x86_64/rhm-debuginfo-0.1-1.x86_64.rpm
[nsantos@qpid-test pkg]$
--

SHOULD:
OK * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
OK * package should build on i386
OK * package should build in mock



Marking as APPROVED
Comment 2 Nuno Santos 2007-04-16 21:34:18 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: rhm
Short Description: Red Hat extensions to the Qpid messaging system
Owners: aconway@redhat.com,nsantos@redhat.com
Branches: 
InitialCC: 

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.