Bug 227106
Summary: | Review Request: plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp - Plexus Common Utilities | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Rafael H. Schloming <rafaels> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Matt Wringe <mwringe> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | dbhole, tross |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | nsantos:
fedora-review+
dennis: 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: | 2007-03-12 18:14:41 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 17:53:44 UTC
plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp.src.rpm Legend: OK: passes criteria NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers) NA: non applicable ??: unable to verify MUST: OK * package is named appropriately OK - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - 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 OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware ?? - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. OK - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} ?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. NO * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) -- BuildRoot: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot -- NA * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there -- $ rpmlint plexus-utils-1.2-1jpp.src.rpm W: plexus-utils non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-utils invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0 E: plexus-utils unknown-key GPG#c431416d W: plexus-utils mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 51) -- OK * changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. OK * Packager tag should not be used NO * Vendor tag should not be used -- Vendor: JPackage Project -- OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement NO * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 -- [junit] Testcase: testContentEquals took 0.087 sec [junit] Caused an ERROR [junit] null [junit] java.lang.NullPointerException [junit] at org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtils.copyURLToFile(FileUtils.java:955) [junit] at org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtilsTest.testContentEquals(FileUtilsTest.java:172) BUILD FAILED /builddir/build/BUILD/plexus-utils-1.2/build.xml:45: Test org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtilsTest failed -- ?? * 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 OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? NO * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS -- ... %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT install -d -m 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/plexus ... -- OK * don't use %makeinstall NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK * package should own all directories and files OK * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime NA * 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 ?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 NO * package should build in mock -- [junit] Testcase: testContentEquals took 0.087 sec [junit] Caused an ERROR [junit] null [junit] java.lang.NullPointerException [junit] at org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtils.copyURLToFile(FileUtils.java:955) [junit] at org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtilsTest.testContentEquals(FileUtilsTest.java:172) BUILD FAILED /builddir/build/BUILD/plexus-utils-1.2/build.xml:45: Test org.codehaus.plexus.util.FileUtilsTest failed -- New files are here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-utils/ I have disable two test files, both of which are explained in the spec file. Package does not have a license file in it, so it will not be installed. Looks good to me, only thing I noticed is that the license file is still missing: " NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc " That is fine. The license needs to be in the file only if the tarball includes it. In this case, it doesn't. Please mark fedora-review+ if you are satisfied with the srpm/spec in it's current state. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: plexus-utils Short Description: Plexus Common Utilities Owners: mwringe Branches: InitialCC: does this need or not need cvs admin attention? (In reply to comment #6) > does this need or not need cvs admin attention? Hmm, I might have been given some bad information. I tried to upload this myself but it only halfed worked (it fails halfway through, so I now have an empty devel directory). So I guess only cvs admins can upload new projects? Fixed |