Comment 11 for bug 590988

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

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!] Rpmlint output:
 acgvision-agent-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development Documentation
Use Documentation only
./SPECS/acgvision-agent.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install
Not a problem in recent Fedora.
./SPECS/acgvision-agent.spec:54: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 54, tab: line 1)
Please use either tabs or spaces.
[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.
[!] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
You miss the following requires
Requires(post): chkconfig
Requires(preun): chkconfig
# This is for /sbin/service
Requires(preun): initscripts

[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[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].
[!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type:GPLv2 in spec but GPLv3 in the copying.txt and license files shipped with sources
[x] 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.
[x] 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 :f91be30d4fb8fad9d5e15f8e51b28482
MD5SUM upstream package:f91be30d4fb8fad9d5e15f8e51b28482
[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.
[x] Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x] Package consistently uses macros.
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] 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] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that trball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x] 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.

=== Other suggestions ===
[x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} with %{_javadocdir}/%{name} symlink
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar with %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (unversioned) symlink
[-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant
[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.

=== Issues ===
1. Fix rpmlint
2. Fix missing requires per guidelines
3. Fix license
4. Replace hardcoded directories with macroses per http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:RPMMacros