[Bug 226553] Merge Review: xdoclet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xdoclet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226553 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution||RAWHIDE -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226553] Merge Review: xdoclet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xdoclet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226553 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-27 10:59 EST --- built into rawhide -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226553] Merge Review: xdoclet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xdoclet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226553 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Flag||fedora-review+ --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-26 16:37 EST --- * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -pq --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xdoclet-1.2.3-8jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xdoclet-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-apache-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-bea-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-borland-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-caucho-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-ejb-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-exolab-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-hibernate-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-hp-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-ibm-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-java-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-jboss-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-jdo-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-jmx-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-jsf-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-libelis-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-macromedia-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-mvcsoft-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-mx4j-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-objectweb-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-openejb-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-oracle-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-orion-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-portlet-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-pramati-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-solarmetric-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-spring-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-sun-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-sybase-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-tjdo-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-web-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-webwork-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-wsee-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet-xdoclet-module-1.2.3.jar.so()(64bit) xdoclet = 0:1.2.3-8jpp.1.fc7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -pq --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xdoclet-1.2.3-8jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh bsf jakarta-commons-collections jakarta-commons-logging java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) log4j rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) velocity xalan-j2 >= 0:2.7.0 xjavadoc = 0:1.1 xml-commons-apis [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -pq --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xdoclet-debuginfo-1.2.3-8jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm xdoclet-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-apache-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-bea-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-borland-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-caucho-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-ejb-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-exolab-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-hibernate-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-hp-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-ibm-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-java-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-jboss-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-jdo-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-jmx-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-jsf-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-libelis-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-macromedia-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-mvcsoft-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-mx4j-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-objectweb-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-openejb-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-oracle-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-orion-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-portlet-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-pramati-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-solarmetric-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-spring-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-sun-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-sybase-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-tjdo-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-web-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-webwork-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-wsee-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-xdoclet-module-1.2.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) xdoclet-debuginfo = 0:1.2.3-8jpp.1.fc7 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -pq --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xdoclet-debuginfo-1.2.3-8jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~]$ rpm -pq --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-
[Bug 226553] Merge Review: xdoclet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xdoclet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226553 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-25 20:01 EST --- (In reply to comment #2) > > X specfile is legible > - please get rid of section tag Done > X package should build in mock > cant' build in mock: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] pcheung]$ mock xdoclet-1.2.3-8jpp.1.src.rpm > init > clean > prep > This may take a while > setup > 0:xjavadoc-1.1-4jpp.2.x86_64 > No Package Found for mockobjects > 0:jakarta-commons-logging-1.0.4-6jpp.1.x86_64 > 0:log4j-1.2.13-3jpp.2.x86_64 > 0:jakarta-commons-collections-3.1-9jpp.1.fc7.x86_64 > 0:struts-1.2.9-4jpp.6.x86_64 > 0:javacc-4.0-3jpp.3.x86_64 > 0:ant-trax-1.6.5-4jpp.2.fc7.x86_64 > 0:java-1.5.0-gcj-devel-1.5.0.0-14.fc7.x86_64 > 0:ant-nodeps-1.6.5-4jpp.2.fc7.x86_64 > 0:java-1.5.0-gcj-devel-1.5.0.0-14.fc7.x86_64 > 0:jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7.noarch > 0:xml-commons-apis-1.3.03-0jpp.1.fc7.x86_64 > 0:jpackage-utils-1.7.3-1jpp.2.fc7.noarch > 0:xalan-j2-2.7.0-6jpp.1.x86_64 > 0:velocity-1.4-6jpp.1.x86_64 > 0:jakarta-commons-lang-2.1-6jpp.1.fc7.x86_64 > 0:ant-1.6.5-4jpp.2.fc7.x86_64 > 0:bsf-2.3.0-11jpp.1.x86_64 > 0:jrefactory-2.8.9-6jpp.3.x86_64 > 0:junit-3.8.2-3jpp.1.fc7.x86_64 > > Cannot find build req mockobjects. Exiting. > ending > done Fixed, mockobjects has been removed in Fedora and my spec file was a bit outdated. New SRPM: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/353/xdoclet-1.2.3-8jpp.1.src.rpm -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226553] Merge Review: xdoclet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Merge Review: xdoclet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226553
[EMAIL PROTECTED] changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|normal |medium
--- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-04-19 11:19 EST ---
Please fix item(s) mared by X:
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
- match upstream tarball or project name
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
- specfile should be %{name}.spec
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
something)
- for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
- 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
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
- OSI-approved
- not a kernel module
- not shareware
- is it covered by patents?
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
- no binary firmware
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
- use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name}
* 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
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
- should be:
%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
useless?)
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on .srpm gives no output
W: xdoclet non-standard-group Development/Framework
This is OK
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
- 0.6-4
- And fix the link syntax.
* Packager tag should not be used
* Vendor tag should not be used
* Distribution tag should not be used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
X specfile is legible
- please get rid of section tag
* 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
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
- see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* 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
* don't use %makeinstall
* install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
* 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
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
- see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
- in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* 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
will do this when I can build in mock
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
will do this when I can b
[Bug 226553] Merge Review: xdoclet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xdoclet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226553 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED]|[EMAIL PROTECTED] -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 226553] Merge Review: xdoclet
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: xdoclet https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226553 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2007-03-28 15:54 EST --- Updated Files: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/354/xdoclet.spec https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/353/xdoclet-1.2.3-8jpp.1.src.rpm -- 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. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
