[Bug 591454] Review Request: spice-parent - Sonatype Spice Components

[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=591454

--- Comment #3 from huwang <huwang at redhat.com> 2010-05-14 03:37:34 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> I made a review. Since this is a quite simple package there is just a few minor
> things to go over.
> 
> * rpmlint says
>    spice-parent.src: W: invalid-url Source0: spice-parent-15.tar.gz             
>        We need to specify the sources, especially Source0, with full URL if
> possible. If there is absolutely no way to get a full URL for them, we indicate
> this as a comment in the specfile and give the directions to create the source
> (tar)ball.
>        Also typically, we use %{name}-%{version} macros in Source0 (and in URL
> in your case). This saves us work when we update the package.
Fixed.
> 
>    spice-parent.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Sonatype -> Sonatina,
> Sonata, Resonate
>        I think this is fine.
>    spice-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation                                     
>        So this package source is one .pom file. That's it? No way to get a
> license file from upstream?
Yes,it is only a pom file. No document available.
>    spice-parent.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
> /etc/maven/fragments/spice-parent 
>        This can be ignored for this package.
> 
> ! some suggestions (these are not blockers, take them as you wish):
> 1- In %files, I find it better for legibility to avoid using * if there is only
> one
>    file.
> 2- Please span the description to 80 columns as much as possible for
> consistency with other packages.
> 
> * Latest version should be packaged. There is a spice-parent-16 over there. By
> the way, is there no proper webpage for this where we can track the versions?
> 
As plexus-build-api needs this version and plexus-cipher can also build with
this version. 
> ? Why are we skipping the mvn-jpp part of the maven guidelines?
>    http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#maven
It's only a pom file, I think nothing to do for the pom in %build section.
> 
> This is it about the package for now. I see that you need to be sponsored.
> Typically in Fedora, we ask the packagers to do some more work to show that
> they are proficient in following the guidelines. This can be done in a couple
> ways: Preferably, you can do some informal reviews on other people's packages.
> Or you can post some other package(s) for review. It would be good to try
> packaging or reviewing some other type of software than single .pom files. This
> will help sponsors to understand your proficiency.    
I created another package's request. :)

-- 
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.