Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: felix-gogo-parent - Parent package for Felix Gogo
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=751316
Summary: Review Request: felix-gogo-parent - Parent package for Felix Gogo 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/felix-gogo-parent/0.6.0/1/felix-gogo-parent.s... SRPM URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/felix-gogo-parent/0.6.0/1/felix-gogo-parent-0... Description: Apache Felix is a community effort to implement the OSGi R4 Service Platform and other interesting OSGi-related technologies under the Apache license. The OSGi specifications originally targeted embedded devices and home services gateways, but they are ideally suited for any project interested in the principles of modularity, component-orientation, and/or service-orientation. OSGi technology combines aspects of these aforementioned principles to define a dynamic service deployment framework that is amenable to remote management.
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=751316
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=751316
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 #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-11-07 03:04:36 EST --- 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=751316
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-11-07 06:41:56 EST --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: felix-gogo-parent.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US modularity -> molecularity 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Fine. [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. [-] 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 :660d1e80317e1b9c4fca8261d8267e74 MD5SUM upstream package:660d1e80317e1b9c4fca8261d8267e74 [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 or must require 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. [-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [-] 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. [-] 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 === [-] 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. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
=== Issues === 1. Please add a require on maven. Having pom file without maven is useless. This is not a blocker though.
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=751316
Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com 2011-11-08 04:21:49 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: felix-gogo-parent Short Description: Parent package for Felix Gogo Owners: tradej 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=751316
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-11-08 08:09:38 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=751316
Andrew Robinson arobinso@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |751792
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=751316
Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2011-11-09 04:50:36
--- Comment #5 from Tomas Radej tradej@redhat.com 2011-11-09 04:50:36 EST --- Thanks.
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=751316
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla