[Bug 1663633] New: Review Request: clojure-maven-plugin - maven plugin to build Clojure programs
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663633
Bug ID: 1663633 Summary: Review Request: clojure-maven-plugin - maven plugin to build Clojure programs Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: markku.korkeala@iki.fi QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://artifacts-space.ams3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/fedora/clojure-maven...
SRPM URL: https://artifacts-space.ams3.cdn.digitaloceanspaces.com/fedora/clojure-maven...
Description: I would like to become an owner of the retired package clojure-maven-plugin. Program is a maven plugin needed to build Clojure program, which use maven tooling.
Fedora Account System Username: korkeala
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663633
--- Comment #1 from Markku Korkeala markku.korkeala@iki.fi --- (In reply to Markku Korkeala from comment #0)
Description: I would like to become an owner of the retired package clojure-maven-plugin. Program is a maven plugin needed to build Clojure program, which use maven tooling.
Forgot to mention that this is my first package and I need a sponsor.
Here is a link to koji build for the package: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31842125
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663633
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- - You must install the license file with %license, not %doc:
%files -f .mfiles %license epl-v10.html %doc README.markdown
- Why did you add an Epoch: 1 ? It doesn't seem needed.
- Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License", "Eclipse Public License (v1.0)", "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License (v1.0)", "Unknown or generated". 107 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/clojure-maven- plugin/review-clojure-maven-plugin/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: clojure-maven-plugin-1.8.1-1.fc30.noarch.rpm clojure-maven-plugin-1.8.1-1.fc30.src.rpm clojure-maven-plugin.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.8.1-1 ['1:1.8.1-1.fc30', '1:1.8.1-1'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663633
--- Comment #3 from Markku Korkeala markku.korkeala@iki.fi --- Thank you for the review, much appreciated. I updated the spec-file with the corrections. I think I added the Epoch looking some examples, not necessary so I removed it. Updated files:
Spec-file: https://artifacts-space.ams3.digitaloceanspaces.com/fedora/clojure-maven-plu... New source rpm: https://artifacts-space.ams3.digitaloceanspaces.com/fedora/clojure-maven-plu...
Changelog for the version: * Sun Feb 10 2019 Markku Korkeala markku.korkeala@iki.fi - 1.8.1-2 - Remove jpackage-utils from (Build)Requires - Use license macro for file epl-v10.html - Remove unnecessary Epoch
New koji scratch build is at: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=32710236
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663633
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com --- I am sorry I forgotten this review.
Package is approved.
You still need to find a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663633
--- Comment #5 from Markku Korkeala markku.korkeala@iki.fi --- No worries, thank you for the review :)
I'll continue searching for a sponsor.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663633
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663633
Robert-André Mauchin zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1663633
Markku Korkeala markku.korkeala@iki.fi changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2019-08-25 19:19:50
--- Comment #6 from Markku Korkeala markku.korkeala@iki.fi --- Package has been built for rawhide and f31, closing the review request.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com