From Fedora Project Wiki

(Created page with '= Java Review Template = Following template can be used by reviewers to simplify their reviews of Java packages and by packagers to double-check they haven't forgotten something...')
 
 
(13 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
= Java Review Template =
 
 
 
Following template can be used by reviewers to simplify their reviews of Java packages and by packagers to double-check they haven't forgotten something.
 
Following template can be used by reviewers to simplify their reviews of Java packages and by packagers to double-check they haven't forgotten something.
  
Line 14: Line 12:
  
 
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[ ]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 
[ ]  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
 
[ ]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 
[ ]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
 
Tested on:
 
 
[ ]  Rpmlint output:
 
[ ]  Rpmlint output:
[ ]  Package is not relocatable.
+
[ ]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[ ]  Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
+
[ ]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec.
[ ]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
+
[ ]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
 +
[ ]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
 +
[ ]  Buildroot definition is not present
 +
[ ]  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].
 
[ ]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 
[ ]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 
License type:
 
License type:
 
[ ]  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.
 
[ ]  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
 
[ ]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 
[ ]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
 
[ ]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
 
[ ]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
 
MD5SUM this package    :
 
MD5SUM this package    :
 
MD5SUM upstream package:
 
MD5SUM upstream package:
[ ]  Package is not known to require ExcludeArch, OR:
+
[ ]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
Arches excluded:
+
[ ]  Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other packages for directories it uses.
Why:
 
[ ]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 
[ ]  The spec file handles locales properly.
 
[ ] ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required.
 
[ ]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
 
[ ]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 
 
[ ]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 
[ ]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
 +
[ ]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason
 
[ ]  Permissions on files are set properly.
 
[ ]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+
[ ]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[ ]  Package consistently uses macros.
+
[ ]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing)
 
[ ]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
 
[ ]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[ ]  Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
 
[ ]  Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
 
[ ]  Header files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 
[ ]  Static libraries in -devel subpackage, if present.
 
[ ]  Package requires pkgconfig, if .pc files are present.
 
[ ]  Development .so files in -devel subpackage, if present.
 
 
[ ]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
 
[ ]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[ ]  Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la).
 
 
[ ]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.
 
[ ]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.
 
[ ]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 
[ ]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
 +
[ ]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage
 +
[ ]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
 +
[ ]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
 +
[ ]  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
 +
[ ]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
 +
[ ]  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_maven_depmap
 +
 +
=== Maven ===
 +
[ ]  Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
 +
[ ]  If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment
 +
[ ]  If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment
 +
[ ]  Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
 +
[ ]  Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
  
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
+
=== Other suggestions ===
 +
[ ]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
 +
[ ]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
 +
[ ]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
 
[ ]  Latest version is packaged.
 
[ ]  Latest version is packaged.
[ ]  Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
 
[ ]  Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
 
 
[ ]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
 
[ ]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
 
Tested on:
 
Tested on:
[ ]  Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
 
Tested on:
 
[ ]  Package functions as described.
 
[ ]  Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
 
[ ]  The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
 
[ ]  File based requires are sane.
 
  
  
Line 84: Line 82:
 
*** REJECTED ***
 
*** REJECTED ***
 
================
 
================
 +
 +
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
 +
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
 +
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
 +
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
 +
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
 +
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames
 
</pre>
 
</pre>
 +
 +
[[Category:Package Maintainers/Review Template]]

Latest revision as of 11:37, 2 October 2011

Following template can be used by reviewers to simplify their reviews of Java packages and by packagers to double-check they haven't forgotten something.

Package Review
==============

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[ ]  Rpmlint output:
[ ]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[ ]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec.
[ ]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[ ]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[ ]  Buildroot definition is not present
[ ]  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].
[ ]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:
[ ]  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
[ ]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    :
MD5SUM upstream package:
[ ]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[ ]  Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ ]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason
[ ]  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)
[ ]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing)
[ ]  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.
[ ]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage
[ ]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[ ]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[ ]  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
[ ]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[ ]  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_maven_depmap

=== Maven ===
[ ]  Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[ ]  If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment
[ ]  If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment
[ ]  Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[ ]  Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro

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


=== Issues ===
1.

=== Final Notes ===
1.


================
*** APPROVED ***
================

or

================
*** REJECTED ***
================

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames