[Bug 818589] Review Request: fest-swing-junit - FEST Swing JUnit support

Fri May 4 13:53:44 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=818589

--- Comment #2 from Omair Majid <omajid at redhat.com> 2012-05-04 09:53:43 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

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

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

fest-swing-junit.src: W: invalid-url Source0: fest-swing-junit-1.2.1.tar.bz2

Okay. Upstream does not publish a source-only tarball.

[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].

Could you add some more details to, and clarify, the description (especially as
contained in the spec file itself). A very brief explanation of the word FEST
would be nice too.

[!]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.

Some dependencies are not yet included in fedora.

[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:
[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.
[-]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

Upstream does not publish source tarballs.

[!]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].

Missing "BuildRequires: java-devel"

Since we are not running tests, perhaps we can leave the fest-test dependency
out? (I am assuming that since it's only listed as BuildRequires that it's
needed for a test).

Just a nit: you might want to use junit rather than junit4 as a dependency -
just to make things clearer. The junit4 package was removed in F17 and junit
provides junit4.

[!]  Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.

Missing "Requires: jpackage-utils" (needed for /usr/share/java/)

[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.

Duplicate license file is fine.

[x]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)

There is an unnecessary rm -rf at the end of %install

[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)
[!]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils

Missing Requires on jpackage-utils.

[x]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-]  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

Tests are being skipped without any comment. I guess it's because of test
dependencies that can not be packaged due to licensing reasons?

[-]  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 ===
[-]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary

Exact dep on other fest-* packages is okay.

[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[!]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Can't build due to missing deps in fedora

=== Issues ===
1. Could you add some more details to, and clarify, the description (especially
as contained in the spec file itself). A very brief explanation of the word
FEST would be nice too.
2. Please make sure this package builds with the set of packages in fedora
3. Missing "BuildRequires: java-devel"
4. Can the fest-test dependency be left out ? (I am assuming that since it's
only listed as BuildRequires that it's needed for a test).
5. Please depend on junit rather than junit4
6. Missing "Requires: jpackage-utils"
7. Unnecessary 'rm -rf' at end of %install.
8. Please add a comment explaining why you are skipping tests.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames

-- 
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.