Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.
Bug 225637 - Merge Review: castor
Summary: Merge Review: castor
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Parag AN(पराग)
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-01-31 17:49 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2013-11-28 03:54 UTC (History)
5 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-11-28 03:54:54 UTC
panemade: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 17:49:07 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: castor
Initial Owner:

Comment 2 Kevin Fenzi 2007-06-09 04:39:13 UTC
Hey Matt. I see this review is assigned to you, but still in the NEW state with
the fedora-review flag not set. 

Do you intent to review here? 

Comment 3 Matt Wringe 2007-07-06 22:07:05 UTC
Package cannot be build this the current version of gcj in Fedora due to enum
now being a reserved keyword. Please fix this by setting the source level or by
patching the files.

* package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
 - specfile should be %{name}.spec
 - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
 - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
 - 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
OK, look ok to me 
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
OK (its BSD-style)
* specfile name matches %{name}
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
OK, the md5sums match
* 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 %
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
* packages meets FHS (
OK, looks OK to me
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
rpmlint castor-0.9.5-1jpp.9.src.rpm 
W: castor non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

OK (group warnings can be safely ignored)

* changelog should be in a proper formats:
* 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)
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
X package does not build
* BuildRequires are proper
? Will check when it builds properly
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
X Can you make line 134 multiple lines instead?
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
* 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
* 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
* 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
? Waiting until package builds properly
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
? waiting until package builds properly

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

Comment 4 Permaine Cheung 2007-07-09 16:05:49 UTC
The latest version of the spec file is in Fedora cvs, I just tried that and it
built fine. Please try that one.

Comment 5 Matthias Saou 2007-09-01 16:11:23 UTC
Same remark as Kevin, here. I guess it's an oversight, so I'm changing from NEW

Comment 6 Alexander Kurtakov 2011-12-20 22:58:00 UTC
I have done major revamp of the package, Matt are you interested to review it again?

Comment 7 Mat Booth 2013-08-21 15:29:47 UTC
I too have revamped the package to confirm with modern guidelines and bootstrap the building of extra modules using castor-maven-plugin.

Alexander, would you care to review?

Comment 8 Alexander Kurtakov 2013-08-21 15:34:51 UTC
I'll try to do it soon.

Comment 9 Parag AN(पराग) 2013-11-24 07:16:18 UTC
Suggestions from me
1) Epoch :0 not needed

2) if multiple licenses are specified in license tag then add comments which part of source is in which license

3) Group: tag is not needed anymore

4) local mock build failed for rawhide, submit working spec for further review.

5) Generally patch name should start with %{name}-%{version} against which its created.

Comment 11 Parag AN(पराग) 2013-11-28 03:54:54 UTC
Thanks for fixing this issue.

Package is APPROVED.

Closing this review as required changes are already in rawhide package.

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