[Bug 598058] Review Request: maven-docck-plugin - Maven Documentation Checker Plugin

[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=598058

--- Comment #8 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2010-06-01 08:20:56 EDT ---
NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
the review.
maven-docck-plugin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-docck-plugin-1.0.tar.gz
maven-docck-plugin.noarch: W: self-obsoletion maven2-plugin-docck <= 0:2.0.8
obsoletes maven2-plugin-docck = 1.0-1.fc13
maven-docck-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-docck-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-docck-plugin
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Everything except self-obsoletion is false-positive. You need to fix
that self-obsoletion (by adding epoch 1 to provides) though.

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 unless your package has an exemption.  .
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.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. 
OK: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. 
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: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the
%find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
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. (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). 
OK: 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: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package review time. 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 

Other notes:
You are using gzip compression to create tarball from SVN. Using xz
compression creates smaller archives (saving space on dist machines)
and is fully supported. You can create xz archive by doing:
tar acf maven-docck-plugin-1.0.tar.xz maven-docck-plugin-1.0/
(don't forget to change Source0 URL afterwards)

Another (tiny) thing to be careful about for future is to try to be
consistent in every way possible. For example you are using 0755 in
one place and few lines down you use 755. Pick one style and stick
with it. 

A small tip. It's also possible to install file and create all the
directories in one step. For example:

install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{_javadir}
install -m 644 target/%{name}-%{version}.jar  
%{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar

could be rewritten as (with preserving file timestamps):

install -Dpm 644 target/%{name}-%{version}.jar  
%{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar


So summarized:
 * self-obsoletes
 * compression
 * consistency

At least first two points are necessary for approval, but I would
suggest making spec file as consistent as possible while you are
editing it.

-- 
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.