Bug 1227701

Taking

Fix summary to match the spec/srpm name.

I have just two stylistic suggestions:

First, may I suggest you use a macro to avoid repeating the git tag. For example, at the top of the spec file:

%global git_tag e1ac2000de46fad83b39edc6a0d16103df4f8889

And everywhere else, do:

%{git_tag}

Then in the future when you update the package, you only have to change it in one place.

Second, it should not be necessary to specify "-- -f pom.xml" since maven will automatically use the pom.xml file in the current working directory.


This package is otherwise APPROVED



Review Report
=============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
     one supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils

Maven:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
     when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
     utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Java:
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: eclipse-launchbar-1.0.0-0.1.gite1ac200.fc23.noarch.rpm
          eclipse-launchbar-1.0.0-0.1.gite1ac200.fc23.src.rpm
eclipse-launchbar.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
eclipse-launchbar.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
eclipse-launchbar (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    eclipse-platform
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    jsch
    osgi(org.eclipse.remote.core)
    osgi(org.eclipse.remote.ui)



Provides
--------
eclipse-launchbar:
    eclipse-launchbar
    mvn(org.eclipse.launchbar.features:org.eclipse.launchbar)
    mvn(org.eclipse.launchbar:org.eclipse.launchbar.core)
    mvn(org.eclipse.launchbar:org.eclipse.launchbar.ui)
    mvn(org.eclipse.launchbar:parent:pom:)
    osgi(org.eclipse.launchbar)
    osgi(org.eclipse.launchbar.core)
    osgi(org.eclipse.launchbar.ui)



Source checksums
----------------
http://git.eclipse.org/c/cdt/org.eclipse.launchbar.git/snapshot/org.eclipse.launchbar-e1ac2000de46fad83b39edc6a0d16103df4f8889.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9c704f420aa0f55f52ca6aaa75fb774f8efd818331acccad81aacbf3b70547fa
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9c704f420aa0f55f52ca6aaa75fb774f8efd818331acccad81aacbf3b70547fa


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1227701 -P Java:on --mock-config fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Thanks for the review.

I uploaded a new set of artifacts. I made the change on git_tag. 

I thought to keep the pom.xml there as it helps me being explicit at this stage.

Spec URL:https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-launchbar/eclipse-launchbar.spec

SRPM URL:https://sopotc.fedorapeople.org/eclipse-launchbar/eclipse-launchbar-1.0.0-0.2.gite1ac200.fc22.src.rpm

Excellent, thanks. Please go ahead and submit the scm request.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: eclipse-launchbar
Short Description: Alternative launcher toolbar for Eclipse
Upstream URL: https://wiki.eclipse.org/CDT/LaunchBar
Owners: sopotc
Branches: f22 
InitialCC: eclipse-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).