Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: plexus-pom - plexus pom
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788630
Summary: Review Request: plexus-pom - plexus pom Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: puntogil@libero.it QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/plexus-pom.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/plexus-pom-3.0.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project provides a full software stack for creating and executing software projects.
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=788630
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: plexus-pom |Review Request: plexus-pom |- plexus pom |- Root Plexus Projects pom
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=788630
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sochotni@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |sochotni@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2012-02-15 04:46:13 EST --- I'll review the package
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=788630
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2012-02-15 10:02:13 EST --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. You should probably skip Requires from <dependencyManagement> section. depManagement only specifies versions/configuration of given artifact if child module/project uses it. This way we'd always pull in all plugins even if they were not needed.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint plexus-pom-3.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
plexus-pom.src: W: invalid-url Source0: plexus-pom-3.0.1.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint plexus-pom-3.0.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
plexus-pom.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
explained how to recreate, no problem
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
Would be nice to have I guess, but it's included in pom itself so no big deal
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [!]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires).
See requires [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
==== Java ==== [x]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [-]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [-]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
==== Maven ==== [x]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call [x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
Issues: - Excessive requires, otherwise the package looks OK
Generated by fedora-review 0.1.3pre External plugins: /usr/share/fedora-review/plugins/ext2.pl version: 1.0
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=788630
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it 2012-02-15 13:06:49 EST --- fixed ? Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/plexus-pom.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/plexus-pom-3.0.1-1.fc16.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=788630
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2012-02-21 10:07:21 EST --- Looks good now, just for future please raise release numbers during reviews. It makes reviewing much easier.
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=788630
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it 2012-02-22 08:45:48 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: plexus-pom Short Description: Root Plexus Projects pom Owners: gil Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: java-sig
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=788630
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2012-02-23 04:55:22 EST --- You forgot to set cvs+ flag, setting it for you :-)
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=788630
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2012-02-23 08:28:51 EST --- 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=788630
--- Comment #8 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2012-03-02 05:48:34 EST --- Please remember to close these bugs after the builds (or if you are planning on putting it to F16+, add them as bugs to bodhi updates so they get closed automatically)
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=788630
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2012-03-06 04:57:23
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=788630
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mizdebsk@redhat.com Resolution|NOTABUG |NEXTRELEASE
--- Comment #9 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- plexus-pom is in rawhide, setting appropriate resolution.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla