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...')
 
Line 14: Line 14:
  
 
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
 +
[ ]  Rpmlint output:
 
[ ]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
 
[ ]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]  Spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec.
+
[ ]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec.
 
[ ]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
 
[ ]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported architecture.
+
[ ]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
Tested on:
 
[ ]  Rpmlint output:
 
[ ]  Package is not relocatable.
 
 
[ ]  Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 
[ ]  Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
 
[ ]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
 
[ ]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
Line 26: Line 24:
 
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:
 
Arches excluded:
 
Why:
 
 
[ ]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
 
[ ]  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 must own all directories that it creates.
 
[ ]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 
[ ]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Line 43: Line 37:
 
[ ]  Package consistently uses macros.
 
[ ]  Package consistently uses macros.
 
[ ]  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
 +
[ ]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
 +
[ ]  Packages using maven have proper BuildRequires/Requires(post) on jpackage-utils
 +
[ ]  Packages using maven run %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
 +
[ ]  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.
  
 
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 
=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
 +
[ ]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
 +
[ ]  Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
 +
[ ]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} with %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} symlink
 +
[ ]  If package contains pom.xml files install it even when building with ant
 +
[ ]  If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment
 +
[ ]  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.
 
  
  

Revision as of 13:18, 20 September 2010

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.

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

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[ ]  Rpmlint output:
[ ]  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.
[ ]  Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[ ]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines.
[ ]  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.
[ ]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[ ]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[ ]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[ ]  Package consistently uses macros.
[ ]  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
[ ]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[ ]  Packages using maven have proper BuildRequires/Requires(post) on jpackage-utils
[ ]  Packages using maven run %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[ ]  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.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[ ]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[ ]  Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[ ]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} with %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} symlink
[ ]  If package contains pom.xml files install it even when building with ant
[ ]  If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment
[ ]  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 ***
================