[Bug 795801] Review Request: paranamer - Library for accessing non-private methods at runtime

Tue Mar 13 10:50:15 UTC 2012

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=795801

--- Comment #4 from Juan Hernández <juan.hernandez at redhat.com> 2012-03-13 06:50:13 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output:

Source package:

$ rpmlint paranamer-2.2-2.fc17.src.rpm
paranamer.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time, run-time,
rudiment
paranamer.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time,
run-time, rudiment
paranamer.src: W: invalid-url Source0: paranamer-2.2-CLEAN.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings

Binary packages built in Koji:
$ rpmlint paranamer-2.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
paranamer-javadoc-2.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
paranamer.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) runtime -> run time,
run-time, rudiment
paranamer.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time,
run-time, rudiment
paranamer.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/paranamer-2.2/LICENSE.txt
paranamer-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
paranamer-javadoc.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm
/usr/share/doc/paranamer-javadoc-2.2/LICENSE.txt
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.

[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.
[!]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].

Summary is not accurate (see issues below).

[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: BSD
[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.

MD5SUM this package    : 2635b2776976757131eb9eb295d7d8c7
MD5SUM upstream package: 1092a9f7308f427c0481b3cfff72bfec

Compared the sources this package sources and upstream sources from upstream
with diff and there are no differences:

[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
[!]  Permissions on files are set properly.

See rpmlint of binary packages.

[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.
[-]  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, ...)
[x]  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
[x]  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)
[!]  Latest version is packaged.

According to the project web page version 2.3 was released in October 2010.
However there is no tag in the subversion repository for that version. Such a
tag does exist in the alternative GIT repository in the following location:

git://git.codehaus.org/paranamer-git.git

The newest tag there is 2.4.1 (from Jan 28 2012) and that is also the latest
version available in maven repositories.

[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3888481

=== Issues ===

1. Spelling warnings from rpmlint are acceptable.

2. LICENSE.txt shouldn't have execution permission.

3. I think that the summary doesn't describe the package accurately, it should
be something like the following:

- Library for accessing non-private methods at runtime
+ Library for accessing non-private method *parameter names* at run-time

4. Is there any reason not to use latest upstream version?

=== Final Notes ===

I would approve once you fix #2 and #3, and would like to hear your opinion
about #4.

-- 
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.