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 225947 - Merge Review: jlex
Summary: Merge Review: jlex
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Stanislav Ochotnicky
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-01-31 19:12 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2011-03-08 10:21 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-03-08 10:21:44 UTC
sochotni: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 19:12:44 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: jlex

http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/jlex/
Initial Owner: vivekl@redhat.com

Comment 1 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-03-08 07:26:26 UTC
I'll do the review, akurtakov will do the fixing.

Comment 2 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-03-08 08:55:56 UTC
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[! ]  Rpmlint output:
jlex.noarch: W: no-documentation
One java file so it's uderstandable but directory
http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~appel/modern/java/JLex/Archive/1.2.6/

contains both manual and sample .lex file. I'd suggest adding these to the distribution

jlex-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[!]  Buildroot definition is not present
Better remove it

[X]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4].
[X]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: BSD
[-]  If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package is included in %doc.
[-]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[X]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[X]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    : fe0cff5db3e2f0f5d67a153cf6c783af
[X]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[X]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[X]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[X]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[X]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
remove clean section and rm -rf 

[!]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing)
pick one of them
[X]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[X]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[X]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage
[X]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[X]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[X]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-]  Package uses %global not %define
[-]  If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-]  If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building
[X]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[X]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant
[-]  pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly)

=== Other suggestions ===
[X]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[X]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[X]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[X]  Latest version is packaged.
[X]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64


=== Issues ===
1. documentation (manual, sample)
2. buildroot present
3. clean section and rm -rf in %install
4. macro mixing

Comment 3 Alexander Kurtakov 2011-03-08 09:39:52 UTC
All fixed. 
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=232571

Comment 4 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-03-08 10:21:44 UTC
All good now. closing


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