[Bug 607385] Review Request: felix-osgi-foundation - OSGi Foundation Execution Environment (EE) Classes

[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=607385

Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2010-06-30 05:52:33 EDT ---
K: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
empty output..no errors, no 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 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: 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. (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:
 * javadoc subpackage should have requires on jpackage-utils (sorry I
   didn't notice before)
 * why "Prevent brp-java-repack-jars from being run." ?
 * there is %{_mavenpomdir} macro you can use instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms

You are correct, documentation on proper maven packages should be
improved, no argument there. Why I asked for maven build? I assumed
that's what upstream is using, and it's always best to use the same
build system as upstream unless there is good reason not to.

Package is in really good shape and of those three problems only
jpackage-utils requires is really important. Fix it before you commit
to the repository please. I would also like to know why you want to
prevent brp-java-repack-jars from running (maybe I'll learn something
new this way :-) ).

All in all 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.