[Bug 616808] Review Request: maven-changes-plugin - Plugin to support reporting of changes between releases

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=616808

Chris Spike <chris.spike at arcor.de> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Chris Spike <chris.spike at arcor.de> 2010-07-21 10:59:57 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.

maven-changes-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml ->
XML, XL, ml
-> False positive

maven-changes-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
-> Ok, src contains no license for doc

rpmbuild/SPECS/maven-changes-plugin.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
maven-changes-plugin-2.3.tar.xz
-> Upstream doesn't do source releases. 

maven-changes-plugin.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML,
XL, ml
-> False positive

maven-changes-plugin.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
maven-changes-plugin-2.3.tar.xz
-> Upstream doesn't do source releases.

3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: 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: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: 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 primary architecture.
OK: 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: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: 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: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Other Notes:
 * Since the src contains not license text, upstream should be informed to
include one
 * OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.


Package is APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.