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 ReviewAssignee: Deepak Bhole <dbhole>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: 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
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp.src.rpm
Description: Surefire is a test framework project.

Surefire is a test framework project.

Javadoc for maven-surefire.

Javadoc for maven-surefire.

Comment 1 Tania Bento 2007-02-26 20:46:33 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

Comment 2 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-05 21:45:57 UTC
I'll take this one.

Comment 3 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-05 23:04:18 UTC
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.


Comment 4 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-07 04:43:32 UTC
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


Comment 5 Tania Bento 2007-03-13 17:45:14 UTC
> 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

Comment 6 Tania Bento 2007-03-13 17:45:44 UTC
> 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

Comment 7 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-13 18:02:40 UTC
* 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.

Comment 8 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-13 18:58:01 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: maven-surefire
Short Description: Surefire is a test framework project
Owners: dbhole
Branches: devel

Comment 9 Bernard Johnson 2007-04-11 22:47:45 UTC
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