Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: bean-validation-api - Bean Validation API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730982
Summary: Review Request: bean-validation-api - Bean Validation API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: mgoldman@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/bean-validation-api/1/bean-v... SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/bean-validation-api/1/bean-v... Description: This package contains Bean Validation (JSR-303) API
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730982
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183(FE-JAVASIG)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730982
Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |tradej@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tradej@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730982
--- Comment #1 from Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com 2011-08-29 04:42:53 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: 0 errors, 2 warnings. - invalid url in URL and SOURCE1 [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. [x] Buildroot definition is not present [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. (ASL 2.0) [!] 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. >> File license.txt not included in %doc [!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own >> File license.txt not included in %doc for javadoc [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. [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] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [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] 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 [x] Package uses %global not %define [x] 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) [x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven === [x] 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 [x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== 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.
=== Issues === 1. License file not put in %doc (both the main package and javadoc)
=== Notes === 1. Invalid URL (probably a redirect mayhem, Firefox opens it fine)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730982
--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com 2011-08-29 04:58:11 EDT --- Fixed here:
Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/bean-validation-api/2/bean-v... SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/bean-validation-api/2/bean-v...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730982
Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com 2011-08-29 05:15:28 EDT --- ============ APPROVED ============
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730982
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com 2011-08-29 05:18:10 EDT --- Thanks for review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: bean-validation-api Short Description: Bean Validation API Owners: goldmann
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730982
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-08-29 08:05:28 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730982
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2011-08-29 09:05:13
--- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com 2011-08-29 09:05:13 EDT --- Thanks for git, closing!
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=730982
Juan Hernández juan.hernandez@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |juan.hernandez@redhat.com
--- Comment #7 from Juan Hernández juan.hernandez@redhat.com 2012-04-16 09:09:12 EDT --- *** Bug 812862 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla