[Bug 794923] Review Request: stax-utils - StAX utility 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=794923

--- Comment #2 from Juan Hernández <juan.hernandez at redhat.com> 2012-03-01 07:05:28 EST ---
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output:

Result of rpmlint of the SRPM:

stax-utils.src: W: invalid-url Source0: stax-utils-20110309.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Result of rpmlint of the binary RPMs:

2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[!]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].

Version should be 0 and release should be 0.1.20110309svn.

[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.

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3843082

[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].
[!]  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.

Should include LICENSE instead of (or in addition to) COPYRIGHT.TXT.

[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.
[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.
[-]  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.
[x]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x]  Package uses %global not %define
[x]  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

The following jar files are not removed before build:

./stax-utils-20110309/lib/src/jsr173_1.0_javadoc.jar
./stax-utils-20110309/lib/src/jsr173_1.0_src.jar
./stax-utils-20110309/lib/jars/junit.jar
./stax-utils-20110309/lib/jars/jsr173_1.0_api.jar
./stax-utils-20110309/lib/jars/jsr173_1.0_ri.jar

[x]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [1] 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.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

=== Issues ===
1. The rpmlint warning about the source URL is normal and acceptable.
2. The upstream project doesn't tag releases since 7 years ago, and those tags
are apparently date based, so I think we should treat this as pre-release,
putting 0 in the version tag and 0.1.20110309svn in the release tag. However
there is a date used as version in the POM, so I am not completely against
using this date as the version tag. Let me know what you think.
3. The file "LICENSE" contains an updated version of "COPYRIGHT.TXT" with two
additional copyright holders. I think that this "LICENSE" file should be used
instead of (or in addition to) "COPYRIGHT.TXT".
4. Jar files from the source tarball are not removed before build.

=== Final Notes ===
Comment on issue #2, fix #3 and #4 and I will review again.

-- 
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.