Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
dbhole(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|dbhole(a)redhat.com |overholt(a)redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From dbhole(a)redhat.com 2007-02-15 20:02 EST -------
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
OK
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
OK
- specfile should be %{name}.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
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.
- use acronyms for licences where common
OK
* specfile name matches %{name}
OK
* 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
md5s do not match, but contents do
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK
* correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
OK
X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
release tag should have a %{?dist}
* 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
X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
Perhaps change group for javadoc to "Documentation".. ? I will not block on
this though
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com> 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating(a)redhat.com>
- 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Packager tag should not be used
OK
* Vendor tag should not be used
OK
* Distribution 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
- this is largely subjective; use your judgement
OK
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
OK
* 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-9bbfa57478f0460c6...
OK
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK
* don't use rpath
OK
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
OK
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
OK
* 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
OK
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
- if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
end of %install
OK
* 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
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
OK
X * package should own all directories and files
/usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement
* 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
OK
* 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
OK
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
OK
SHOULD:
* 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
--
Configure bugmail:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.