fedora-review denied: [Bug 225238] Merge Review: adaptx
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 225238: Merge Review: adaptx
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Andrew Overholt <overholt(a)redhat.com> has denied Andrew Overholt
<overholt(a)redhat.com>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225238
------- Additional Comments from Andrew Overholt <overholt(a)redhat.com>
MUST:
X rpmlint on adaptx srpm gives no output
W: adaptx invalid-license Exolab Software License
I've emailed fedora-maintainers about this. It looks like it'll be okay but I
want to confirm first.
* package is named appropriately
* specfile name matches %{name}
X package meets packaging guidelines.
. BuildRoot incorrect. As per this:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot
it should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
. do we need section free? I think it can safely be removed.
. can the Summary be expanded a bit?
. the commented-out build-classpath line can probably be removed. was the
dependency on js removed?
. are the two patches still necessary?
. do we need the explicit Epoch? I can't find anything in the guidelines about
this but I think it's a bit verbose. After speaking with others, we've come
to the conclusion that it doesn't violate the guidelines ... but I still don't
like it personally :)
X license field matches the actual license.
. see above
X license is open source-compatible.
. again, see above.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
* specfile is legible
X source files match upstream
. I assume upstream doesn't provide source drops? The svn export is fine in
this case (please use an SVN tag), but can you put exact instructions for how
to
generate the tarball? Preferably something that can be duplicated by just
removing leading #'s. I'd also like to see the comment be before the Source
entry but that's just personal preference :) Also, I don't think the RHCLEAN
is
necessary because I think we can re-distribute what binary jars they include
upstream. As long as we symlink to our built ones, it should be fine.
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on
the other arches in Fedora Core presently)
* BuildRequires are proper
* no locale data so no find_lang necessary
* package is not relocatable
* package owns all directories and files
. I've said in other reviews how I don't like how the javadoc symlinking is
being done, but this won't hold up the review.
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* -doc subpackage fine
. javadoc package present also
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
* no desktop file
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
? final provides and requires are sane
Do we need a java dependency somewhere? How about a Requires on the things we
BR like log4j?
$ rpm -qp --provides i386/adaptx-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm
adaptx-0.9.13.jar.so
adaptx = 0:0.9.13-4jpp.1
$ rpm -qp --provides i386/adaptx-doc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm
adaptx-doc = 0:0.9.13-4jpp.1
$ rpm -qp --provides i386/adaptx-javadoc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm
adaptx-javadoc = 0:0.9.13-4jpp.1
$ rpm -qp --requires i386/adaptx-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
java-gcj-compat
java-gcj-compat
jpackage-utils
jpackage-utils
libc.so.6
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)
libdl.so.2
libgcc_s.so.1
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)
libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0)
libgcj_bc.so.1
libm.so.6
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)
libpthread.so.0
librt.so.1
libz.so.1
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)
$ rpm -qp --requires i386/adaptx-doc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
$ rpm -qp --requires i386/adaptx-javadoc-0.9.13-4jpp.1.i386.rpm
/bin/ln
/bin/rm
/bin/rm
/bin/sh
/bin/sh
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
SHOULD:
* package includes license text
* package builds on i386
... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here
X package functions
. I don't know how to test this package
X package builds in mock
my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems
here as the package currently builds fine in brew
17 years, 3 months
fedora-review denied: [Bug 226298] Merge Review: pirut
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 226298: Merge Review: pirut
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Jima <jima(a)beer.tclug.org> has denied Jima <jima(a)beer.tclug.org>'s request for
fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226298
------- Additional Comments from Jima <jima(a)beer.tclug.org>
OK - Spec in American English
OK - Spec is legible.
See below - Sources match upstream md5sum:
a8f5de528d0491ccbaed671063200521 pirut-1.2.10.tar.gz
OK - BuildRequires correct
OK - Package has %defattr and permissions on files is good.
OK - Package has a correct %clean section.
See below - Package has correct buildroot
OK - Package is code or permissible content.
OK - Packages %doc files don't affect runtime.
OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch.
OK - Package has no duplicate files in %files.
OK - Package doesn't own any directories other packages own.
OK - Package owns all the directories it creates.
See below - No rpmlint output.
See below - final provides and requires are sane:
SHOULD Items:
OK - Should build in mock.
OK - Should build on all supported archs
OK - Should function as described.
OK - Should have dist tag
OK - Should package latest version
62 bugs - check for outstanding bugs on package.
1. Ha ha ha
No upstream site, no MD5SUM to authenticate against, no place to check
we have the latest version. We should probably do something about that.
:-)
2. The recommended BuildRoot is:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
3. rpmlint says:
on pirut-1.2.10-1.fc7.noarch.rpm:
E: pirut obsolete-not-provided system-config-packages
E: pirut obsolete-not-provided redhat-config-packages
E: pirut obsolete-not-provided pup
E: pirut obsolete-not-provided up2date-gnome
E: pirut obsolete-not-provided rhn-applet
on pirut-1.2.10-1.fc7.src.rpm:
W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes system-config-packages
W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes redhat-config-packages
W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes pup
W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes up2date-gnome
W: pirut unversioned-explicit-obsoletes rhn-applet
These are a bit concerning, but based on our discussion on IRC, I have
to agree that they're probably a necessary evil. All of these packages
provided, at one time or another, the same functionality that pirut
does. They're all long gone from Fedora, probably never to come back.
I'd suggest adding Provides for the Obsoleted packages, and perhaps
versioning the Obsoletes, but I honestly can't say what the long-term
side effects to that might be. Ergo, I imagine we need to just go with
what we've got. (Besides, it's already in Core.)
4. I'm a bit concerned about pirut's use of /etc/xdg/autostart/ -- it's
owned by gnome-session, but I'm not seeing any sort of dependency on
gnome-session. This might be a problem.
5. Open bugs. Holy carp! 62 open bugs!
Address #2, #4, and maybe #5 and I think we may have a deal.
17 years, 3 months
fedora-review granted: [Bug 226366] Merge Review: regexp
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 226366: Merge Review: regexp
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Andrew Overholt <overholt(a)redhat.com> has granted Vivek Lakshmanan
<vivekl(a)redhat.com>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366
------- Additional Comments from Andrew Overholt <overholt(a)redhat.com>
(In reply to comment #6)
> > > X source files match upstream
> > > . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending
with the
> > > tar.gz.
> > Really?
>
> Sorry, I accidentally copied that from another review :)
The md5sums match.
> > > X BuildRequires are proper
> > > . why is jpackage-utils in Requires(pre,post)?
> > According to the guidelines, all directories created by the package must be
> > owned by the package
>
> Yes, I agree with your reasoning but let's just remove the javadoc symlinking
in
> %post{,un} and then these requirements can go away.
Okay, this isn't holding up the review, but I still don't like it :).
> > > X final provides and requires are sane
> > > Do we need a 'java' dependency somewhere? Does the (erroneous, I think)
> > > Requires(pre,post) on jpackage-utils imply a regular Requires on it? Do
we
> > > need things in coreutils (rpm, ln) in Requires(post,postun)?
> > Added the Requires on java
I asked about the Requires(x) on coreutils things and the answer was to err on
the safe side so those are fine. I don't like the JPackage-style %{__rm} but
again, that's not going to hold up the review.
APPROVED. Thanks, Vivek!
As per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c7 , please
rebuild this package in Brew and when I've confirmed that the updated package
has hit Rawhide, I'll close this bug as RAWHIDE.
17 years, 3 months
fedora-review granted: [Bug 225306] Merge Review: avalon-logkit
by Red Hat Bugzilla
Bug 225306: Merge Review: avalon-logkit
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review
Andrew Overholt <overholt(a)redhat.com> has granted Andrew Overholt
<overholt(a)redhat.com>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306
------- Additional Comments from Andrew Overholt <overholt(a)redhat.com>
(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > MUST:
> > X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output
> >
> > W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
> >
> > Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ?
> >
>
> It seems acceptable to use Development/Libraries/Java as the Group field,
please
> see:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html
Okay.
> > X package meets packaging guidelines.
> >
> > . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this:
> >
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot
> >
> > it should be:
> >
> > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> >
>
> Fixed.
Great.
> > . do we need section free?
> >
>
> Got rid of it.
Sweet.
> > X specfile is legible
> > . do we still need the crazy gcj_support line?
> >
>
> Yes, please see:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366#c5
Okay.
> > X source files match upstream
> > . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending
with the
> > tar.gz.
> >
>
> Fixed Source0 URL.
Great. The md5sums now match.
> > X BuildRequires are proper
> > . are things in coreutils (/bin/rm, /bin/ln) necessary in
Requires(post{,un})?
> >
>
> Yes, please see:
> https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00076.html
Yup, sounds good.
> > X package owns all directories and files
> > . why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to
the
> > %file section?
>
> Please see the second part of the following comment:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c5
Okay. I'd like to see this cleaned up but it isn't violating any rules so it's
fine.
> > SHOULD:
> > X package functions
> > . I don't know how to test this package
>
> I've built avalon-framework (which has avalon-logkit as a BuildRequire) and
it
> builds fine.
Good.
> > X package builds in mock
> > my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any
problems
> > here as the package currently builds fine in brew
>
> I did a scratch build in brew with the new spec file and it builds fine.
Awesome.
APPROVED. Thanks, Permaine :)
As per https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c7 , please
ebuild this package in Brew and when I've confirmed that the updated package
has
hit Rawhide, I'll close this bug as RAWHIDE.
17 years, 3 months