Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: maven-filtering - Shared component providing resource filtering
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=731110
Summary: Review Request: maven-filtering - Shared component providing resource filtering Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: tradej@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/maven-filtering-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/maven-filtering.spec Description: New package. These Plexus components have been built from the filtering process/code in Maven Resources Plugin. The goal is to provide a shared component for all plugins that needs to filter resources.
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=731110
Tomas Radej tradej@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=731110
--- Comment #1 from Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com 2011-08-16 14:13:24 EDT --- Repackaged - removed rm -rf buildroot from the spec file
SPEC URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/maven-filtering.spec.1 SRPM URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/maven-filtering-1.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
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=731110
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |akurtako@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |akurtako@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-08-16 14:16:12 EDT --- I'll do this one.
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=731110
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-08-17 04:26:30 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: 0 errors, 0 warnings. Impressive :) [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. License type: ASL 2.0 [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 :0fb6fb5d407bd7c8d752762859fe530c MD5SUM upstream package:0fb6fb5d407bd7c8d752762859fe530c [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. [x] 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 [-] 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 [x] 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.
================ *** 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=731110
Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
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=731110
--- Comment #4 from Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com 2011-08-18 04:44:16 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: maven-filtering Short Description: Shared component providing resource filtering Owners: tradej Branches: f16 InitialCC: akurtakov
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=731110
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-08-18 06:12:49 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=731110
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
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=731110
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-18 08:01:56 EDT --- maven-filtering-1.0-2.fc16 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 16. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/maven-filtering-1.0-2.fc16
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=731110
Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-08-18 08:11:45
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=731110
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-08-30 16:41:17 EDT --- maven-filtering-1.0-2.fc16 has been pushed to the Fedora 16 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
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=731110
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |maven-filtering-1.0-2.fc16 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA
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=731110
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org