[Bug 456276] New: Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456276

Summary: Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: medium
          Priority: low
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail],[e-mail]

Spec URL: http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2044/freemarker.spec
SRPM URL: http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2045/freemarker-2.3.13-1.fc10.sr...
Description: 
FreeMarker is a Java tool to generate text output based on templates.
It is designed to be practical as a template engine to generate web
pages and particularly for servlet-based page production that follows
the MVC (Model View Controller) pattern. That is, you can separate the
work of Java programmers and website designers - Java programmers
needn't know how to design nice websites, and website designers needn't
know Java programming.

This package is required for the NetBeans IDE 6.1

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456276

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |456337
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456276

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Summary|Review Request: freemarker -|Review Request: freemarker -
                   |FreeMarker template engine  |FreeMarker template engine

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2008-07-31 13:11 EST -------
This is my first contribution so I need a sponsor please.

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=456276

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |177841
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

Brian Pepple  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
             Blocks|177841                      |

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

--- Comment #2 from Victor G. Vasilyev   2008-08-14 14:33:58 EDT ---
The second release is prepared for review.
Spec URL: http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2044/freemarker.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2110/freemarker-2.3.13-2.fc10.sr...

Changes:
- Appropriate values of Group Tags are chosen from the official list
- Versions of java-devel & jpackage-utils are corrected
- Name of dir for javadoc is changed
- Manual is removed due to http://freemarker.org/docs/index.html

rpmlint shows no errors and no warnings against both SRPM and RPMs.

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

Terje Røsten  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #3 from Terje Røsten   2008-08-19 15:44:41 EDT ---
o Source0 is almost correct, just change from prdownloads to downloads:

Source0:       
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/%%7Bname%7D/%%7Bname%7D-%7Bversion%7D.tar.g...

Ref: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net

o Your are using % style macros for everything, that's good, however then you
should replace install with %{__install} too.

o I would prefer %defattr in this form:

%defattr(-, root, root, -)

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

--- Comment #4 from Victor G. Vasilyev   2008-08-20 09:41:18 EDT ---
The third release is prepared for review.
Spec URL: http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2044/freemarker.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2134/freemarker-2.3.13-3.fc10.sr...

Changes:
- The downloads.sourceforge.net host is used in the source URL
- %%{__install} and %%{__cp} are used everywhere
- %%defattr(-,root,root,-) is used everywhere

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

Lillian Angel  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

Lillian Angel  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]           |[e-mail]

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

--- Comment #5 from Lillian Angel   2008-08-27 14:00:22 EDT ---
The review for this will have to wait until xerces-j2 2.8 is in Fedora.

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

--- Comment #6 from Victor G. Vasilyev   2008-09-01 10:59:57 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> The review for this will have to wait until xerces-j2 2.8 is in Fedora.

After deep investigation of the build procedure of the project I can say that
the build-time dependency upon xerces-j2 package is redundant at all. The
xerces.jar is only(!) used for building javadoc, but the  original source
upstream is already contains pre-built javadoc files that are used to create
the fremarker-javadoc subpackage. Therefore, the dependency upon xerces-j2
package can be removed without any risks.

The next release is prepared for review.
Spec URL: http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2044/freemarker.spec
SRPM URL:
http://nbi.netbeans.org/files/documents/210/2159/freemarker-2.3.13-4.fc10.sr...

Changes:
- Redundant dependency upon xerces-j2 is removed (#456276#c6)
- The dos2unix package is added as the build requirements
- The ant-nodeps build-time requirement is added

The rpmlint shows no errors and no warnings against both SRPM and RPMs.

Successful koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=798011

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

Lillian Angel  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

--- Comment #7 from Lillian Angel   2008-09-02 12:55:29 EDT ---
APPROVED

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines

* 1 Packaging Guidelines
ok
+ 1.2.1 Licensing
ok
+ 1.3.1 Exceptions
ok
o 1.7 Use rpmlint
$ rpmlint /notnfs/langel/rpm/RPMS/noarch/freemarker-*
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
o 1.8 Changelogs
ok
o 1.9 Tags
ok
o 1.10 BuildRoot tag
ok
o 1.11 Requires
ok
o 1.12 BuildRequires
ok
o 1.13 Summary and description
ok
o 1.14 Encoding
ok
o 1.15 Documentation
ok
o 1.16 Compiler flags
n/a
o 1.17 Debuginfo packages
n/a
o 1.18 Exclusion of Static Libraries
n/a
o 1.19 Duplication of system libraries
n/a
o 1.20 Beware of Rpath
n/a
o 1.21 Configuration files
n/a
o 1.22 Initscripts
n/a
o 1.23 Desktop files
n/a
o 1.24 Macros
ok
o 1.25 Handling Locale Files
n/a
o 1.26 Timestamps
n/a
o 1.27 Parallel make
n/a
o 1.28 Scriptlets requirements
n/a
o 1.29 Running scriptlets only in certain situations
n/a
o 1.30 Scriplets are only allowed to write in certain directories
n/a
o 1.31 Conditional dependencies
n/a
o 1.32 Build packages with separate user accounts
n/a
o 1.33 Relocatable packages
n/a
o 1.34 Code Vs Content
ok
o 1.35 File and Directory Ownership
ok
o 1.36 Users and Groups
ok
o 1.37 Web Applications
n/a
o 1.38 Conflicts
n/a
o 1.39 No External Kernel Modules
n/a
o 1.40 No Files or Directories under /srv
n/a
o 1.41 Application Specific Guidelines
n/a

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/ReviewGuidelines

MUST Items:

- MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
done. no errors
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
ok
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption on Package Naming Guidelines
.
ok
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
ok
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines .
ok
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
ok
- 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 must be included in %doc.
ok
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
ok
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is
unable to read the spec file, it will be impossible to perform a review. Fedora
is not the place for entries into the Obfuscated Code Contest
(http://www.ioccc.org/).
ok
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source,
as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one supported architecture.
ok
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch.
ok
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
ok
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
ok
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just
symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in
%post and %postun. If the package has multiple subpackages with libraries, each
subpackage should also have a %post/%postun section that calls /sbin/ldconfig.
ok
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files listing.
ok
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
ok
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf
%{buildroot} ( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ).
ok
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the macros
section of Packaging Guidelines .
ok
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is
described in detail in the code vs. content section of Packaging Guidelines .
ok
- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity)
- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime
of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run
properly if it is not present.
ok
- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
n/a
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
n/a
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'
(for directory ownership and usability).
n/a
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1),
then library files that end in .so (without suffix) must go in a -devel
package.
n/a
- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name} =
%{version}-%{release}
n/a
- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should be
removed in the spec.
n/a
- MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop
file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the
%install section. 
n/a
- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
( or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT ). See Prepping BuildRoot For %install for details.
ok
- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
ok

SHOULD Items:

- 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.
ok
- SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
ok
- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See
MockTricks for details on how to do this.
ok
- SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all
supported architectures.
ok
- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
ok
- SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
- SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency.
n/a
- SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
n/a
- SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself. Please see File Dependencies in the Guidelines for
further information. 
ok

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

--- Comment #8 from Victor G. Vasilyev   2008-09-02 14:02:01 EDT ---
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: freemarker
Short Description: FreeMarker template engine
Owners: victorv
Branches:
InitialCC:

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

--- Comment #9 from Kevin Fenzi   2008-09-03 16:25:02 EDT ---
cvs done.

[Bug 456276] Review Request: freemarker - FreeMarker template engine

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=456276

Victor G. Vasilyev  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NEXTRELEASE

--- Comment #10 from Victor G. Vasilyev   2008-09-03 18:41:54 EDT ---
Successful koji build:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=803443