[Bug 730232] Review Request: jboss-servlet-3.0-api - Java Servlet 3.0 API

[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=730232

Andy Grimm <agrimm at gmail.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #9 from Andy Grimm <agrimm at gmail.com> 2012-03-12 13:34:05 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x]  Rpmlint output:
jboss-servlet-3.0-api.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error
403: Forbidden
jboss-servlet-3.0-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
jboss-servlet-3.0-api-1.0.1.20120312gitd4b6f2.tar.xz
jboss-servlet-3.0-api.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
jboss-servlet-3.0-api.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/jboss-servlet-3.0-api-1.0.1/LICENSE
jboss-servlet-3.0-api-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs
-> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
jboss-servlet-3.0-api-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org
HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
jboss-servlet-3.0-api-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/jboss-servlet-3.0-api-javadoc-1.0.1/LICENSE
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings.

The FSF address should be fixed by upstream.  All other warnings are normal.

[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[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.
[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].
[x]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: CDDL
[x]  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.
[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.
Git source (unpacked tarball matches)
[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
[x]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] 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.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3885681

=== Issues ===
1. As with other jboss packages, please inform upstream of the incorrect FSF
address.

=== Final Notes ===
1. While I trust Richard on what the license of this package should be, I find
it bizarre that we are packaging a file called "LICENSE" which is not the most
applicable license, and then packaging a README which contains more detailed
info about the actual license.  I've seen this in several places.  I don't
think there's anything you can do about it except complain to all the upstreams
who do this.  It's quite conceivable, though, that people looking for license
info will never think to read the README.

================
*** 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.