Bug 227084
Summary: | Review Request: maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp - Surefire is a test framework project. | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rafael H. Schloming <rafaels> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Deepak Bhole <dbhole> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | tross |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | pcheung:
fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2008-02-28 01:03:32 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
Rafael H. Schloming
2007-02-02 17:46:01 UTC
Here are the links to an updates source rpm and spec file: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/251/maven-surefire.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/252/maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp.1.src.rpm I'll take this one. Please fix items marked by X, thanks! MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - please specify tar commands to create the src tar balls - md5sum mismatch, but diff -r shows contents are the same. * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) X license text included in package and marked with %doc - no license marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output W: maven-surefire non-standard-group Development/Java W: maven-surefire mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 59) * changelog format is ok * Packager tag should not be used * Vendor tag should not be used * Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0 - the %define gcj_support .... doesn't seems like it can be split up into multiple lines - for the %post and %postun, the if condition should probably be before the the %post[,un] so that there won't be an empty %post[,un] if gcj_support is 0. - don't we need to define _without_maven in the spec file as well? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs will do these when issues are fixed * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc no license text marked with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock will try to build after issues are fixed, and BR's are built. BuildRequires: jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 BuildRequires: maven2 >= 0:1.1 BuildRequires: junit BuildRequires: saxon BuildRequires: saxon-scripts BuildRequires: plexus-utils BuildRequires: modello-maven-plugin Requires: maven2 >= 0:1.1 should be: BuildRequires: jpackage-utils >= 0:1.7.2 BuildRequires: ant, ant-nodeps BuildRequires: classworlds BuildRequires: junit >= 3.8.2 BuildRequires: plexus-utils BuildRequires: maven2 >= 2.0.4-9 BuildRequires: maven2-plugin-compiler BuildRequires: maven2-plugin-install BuildRequires: maven2-plugin-jar BuildRequires: maven2-plugin-javadoc BuildRequires: maven2-plugin-resources BuildRequires: maven2-plugin-surefire Requires: classworlds Requires: plexus-utils Requires: junit > X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > - please specify tar commands to create the src tar balls > - md5sum mismatch, but diff -r shows contents are the same. Fixed. > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > - no license marked with %doc There is no licencse document included in this package. > * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) > X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > W: maven-surefire non-standard-group Development/Java > W: maven-surefire mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 59) Fixed. > X specfile is legible > - should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please > get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0 > - the %define gcj_support .... doesn't seems like it can be split up > into multiple lines > - for the %post and %postun, the if condition should probably be before the > the %post[,un] so that there won't be an empty %post[,un] if gcj_support is 0. > - don't we need to define _without_maven in the spec file as well? Fixed. I've also built this package on mock. Here are the links to the updates spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/251/maven-surefire.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/252/maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp.1.src.rpm > X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > - please specify tar commands to create the src tar balls > - md5sum mismatch, but diff -r shows contents are the same. Fixed. > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > - no license marked with %doc There is no licencse document included in this package. > * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) > X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > W: maven-surefire non-standard-group Development/Java > W: maven-surefire mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 59) Fixed. > X specfile is legible > - should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please > get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0 > - the %define gcj_support .... doesn't seems like it can be split up > into multiple lines > - for the %post and %postun, the if condition should probably be before the > the %post[,un] so that there won't be an empty %post[,un] if gcj_support is 0. > - don't we need to define _without_maven in the spec file as well? Fixed. I've also built this package on mock. Here are the links to the updates spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/251/maven-surefire.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/252/maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp.1.src.rpm * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm booter-1.5.3.jar.so()(64bit) surefire-1.5.3.jar.so()(64bit) maven-surefire = 0:1.5.3-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/maven-surefire-booter-1.5.3-2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm maven-surefire-booter = 0:1.5.3-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/maven-surefire-debuginfo-1.5.3-2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm booter-1.5.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) surefire-1.5.3.jar.so.debug()(64bit) maven-surefire-debuginfo = 0:1.5.3-2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh classworlds java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils >= 0:1.7.2 jpackage-utils >= 0:1.7.2 junit libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) plexus-utils rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/maven-surefire-booter-1.5.3-2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat maven-surefire = 0:1.5.3-2jpp.1.fc7 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/maven-surefire-debuginfo-1.5.3-2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/maven-surefire-*rpm W: maven-surefire non-standard-group Development/Java W: maven-surefire non-standard-group Development/Java W: maven-surefire no-documentation W: maven-surefire non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven-surefire W: maven-surefire-booter non-standard-group Development/Java W: maven-surefire-booter no-documentation APPROVED. Reassigning for building in plague. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: maven-surefire Short Description: Surefire is a test framework project Owners: dbhole Branches: devel Pardon the bugzilla spam. This package appears to have been approved, imported, and built. If that is the case, please close this bug RESOLVE -> NEXTRELEASE as documented in the package review process: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewProcess?#head-df921556b35438a4c78b4b6a790151ea568e8f9e |