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 227065 - Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package
Summary: Review Request: jakarta-commons-net-1.4.1-1jpp - Jakarta Commons Net Package
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Permaine Cheung
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-02-02 17:39 UTC by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 23:13 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-03-12 21:49:52 UTC
pcheung: fedora-review+
jwboyer: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 17:39:05 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: This is an Internet protocol suite Java library originally developed by
ORO, Inc.  This version supports Finger, Whois, TFTP, Telnet, POP3, FTP,
NNTP, SMTP, and some miscellaneous protocols like Time and Echo as well
as BSD R command support. The purpose of the library is to provide
fundamental protocol access, not higher-level abstractions.

Javadoc for jakarta-commons-net.

Documents for jakarta-commons-net.

Comment 2 Permaine Cheung 2007-02-16 04:53:11 UTC
I'll take this one.

Comment 3 Permaine Cheung 2007-02-16 05:27:15 UTC
* 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
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name}
X 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
I'm getting different md5sum for commons-build.tar.gz, the one in srpm gives:
6854865ce0272a28261d4dc575595390, the one i created from svn co gives:
* 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 (
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <> - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.
  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <> 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.
  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <>
  - 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)
* specfile is legible
* 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:
   fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
* 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
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
* 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
* 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
 - 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 this in mock.
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
* package should build on i386
Built in i386
* package should build in mock
will build in mock when all BRs are there.

Comment 4 Deepak Bhole 2007-02-16 05:44:08 UTC
The md5s for the commons-build.tar.gz may differ due to different
ownership/time/etc. If md5's don't match, comparison of sources is considered
valid afaik.

To compare sources, check out from svn, rename to commons-build.svn, then
extract from commons-build.tar.gz and do:

diff -cr commons-build commons-build.svn

There should be no differences...

Comment 5 Permaine Cheung 2007-02-16 15:59:30 UTC
Great! Did the diff -cr on the sources, and they match.

Built it in mock successfully, here's the rpmlint output on mock built rpms:
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpmlint
W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: jakarta-commons-net non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

Requires and Provides:
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides
commons-net = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7
jakarta-commons-net = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires
jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6
oro >= 2.0.7
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rpmlib(VersionedDependencies) <= 3.0.3-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --provides
jakarta-commons-net-javadoc = 0:1.4.1-2jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 tmp]$ rpm -qp --requires

rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1


Reassigning to myself as I need to build it in plague.

Comment 6 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-05 17:05:23 UTC
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: jakarta-commons-net
Short Description: Internet protocol suite Java library

Comment 7 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-12 21:49:52 UTC
Package built into plague. Closing as NEXTRELEASE.

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