Bug 635981

Summary: Review Request: mojo-signatures - Mojo API signatures project
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it <nobody>
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: fedora-package-review, notting, SpikeFedora
Target Milestone: ---Flags: SpikeFedora: fedora-review+
kevin: 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: 2010-10-01 10:39:00 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:
Bug Depends On: 634543, 1998060    
Bug Blocks:    

Description Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-09-21 08:49:55 UTC
Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/mojo-signatures.spec
SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/mojo-signatures-1.1-0.1.svn11457.fc13.src.rpm

Description: The API Signatures project contains a number of projects which
generate signatures of various APIs, such as the Java Runtime. These
signatures are generated by and consumed by the Animal Sniffer
project.

Note: This package needs animal-sniffer >= 1.6-3 to build

Comment 1 Spike 2010-09-29 14:09:34 UTC
I'll do this one.

Comment 2 Spike 2010-09-29 14:35:53 UTC
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x]  Rpmlint output:
mojo-signatures.src: W: invalid-url Source0: mojo-signatures-1.1.tar.xz
SPECS/mojo-signatures.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: mojo-signatures-1.1.tar.xz
-> Both Ok, no upstream source releases

mojo-signatures.noarch: W: no-documentation
-> Ok, src contains no license for doc

mojo-signatures.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/mojo-signatures
-> false positive

2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

[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.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x]  Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[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:
[ ]  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.
[ ]  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.
[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x]  Package consistently uses macros.
[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.
[ ]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage
[x]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[ ]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x]  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.

=== 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
[ ]  If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven2.jpp.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment
[x]  Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]  Packages have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils (for %update_maven_depmap macro)

=== Other suggestions ===
[x]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[ ]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} with %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} symlink
[x]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant 
[x]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.


================
*** APPROVED ***
================

Comment 3 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-09-29 15:08:50 UTC
Thank you for the review once again.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: mojo-signatures
Short Description: Mojo API signatures project
Owners: sochotni
Branches: f14
InitialCC:

Comment 4 Kevin Fenzi 2010-09-29 18:48:02 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Please do remember to assign reviews to the reviewer.

Comment 5 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-10-01 10:39:00 UTC
Built on koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2505767

Thanks