[Bug 769012] New: Review Request: jetty-distribution-remote-resources - Jetty toolchain artifact for distribution remote resources
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: jetty-distribution-remote-resources - Jetty toolchain artifact for distribution remote resources
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=769012
Summary: Review Request: jetty-distribution-remote-resources - Jetty toolchain artifact for distribution remote resources Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: sochotni@redhat.com 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://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-distribution-remote-resource... SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-distribution-remote-resource...
Description: Jetty toolchain artifact for distribution remote 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=769012
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@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=769012
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 2011-12-19 12:49:50 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=769012
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-12-20 12:15:31 EST --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: jetty-distribution-remote-resources.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin jetty-distribution-remote-resources.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin jetty-distribution-remote-resources.noarch: W: no-documentation jetty-distribution-remote-resources.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin jetty-distribution-remote-resources.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin
[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 or EPL [!] 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. Both licenses are available in src/main/resources and should be added as 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 :d1f201b420376e85c4281f70ed13233c MD5SUM upstream package:d1f201b420376e85c4281f70ed13233c [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. [-] 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 [-] 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 [-] 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.
Issues: * Install the license files as %doc.
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=769012
--- Comment #3 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2011-12-20 12:20:50 EST --- License files installed
Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-distribution-remote-resource... SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-distribution-remote-resource...
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=769012
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-12-20 12:36:32 EST --- 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=769012
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2011-12-21 04:54:48 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jetty-distribution-remote-resources Short Description: Jetty toolchain artifact for distribution remote resources Owners: sochotni Branches: 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=769012
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2011-12-21 06:08:11 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=769012
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2011-12-21 08:43:36
--- Comment #7 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com 2011-12-21 08:43:36 EST --- Built done, thanks for review & repo
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=279676
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=769012
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla