Bug 751093

I'll look at this one.

Initial note: it seems to be missing the following BuildRequires:

BuildRequires:	maven-dependency-plugin
BuildRequires:	maven-enforcer-plugin
BuildRequires:	maven-surefire-provider-junit
BuildRequires:	plexus-resources

I'll try building it with those added and see how the rest of it is.

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[X]  Rpmlint output:
jetty-artifact-remote-resources.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin
jetty-artifact-remote-resources.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin
jetty-artifact-remote-resources.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin
jetty-artifact-remote-resources.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US toolchain -> tool chain, tool-chain, Chaitin
jetty-artifact-remote-resources.noarch: W: no-documentation

(The .rpmlint file will deal with the spelling warning)


[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].
[!]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
See above about missing BuildRequires in comment 2. If they are added, then it builds successfully in rawhide mock.

[x]  Buildroot definition is not present
[ ]  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].
[ ]  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
[-]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    : 841e7809f967c4b4e77fb910095b414c
MD5SUM upstream package: 841e7809f967c4b4e77fb910095b414c
[!]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].

See comment 2

[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing)
[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
[-]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-]  Package uses %global not %define
[-]  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.
[-]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant
[x]  pom files has correct add_maven_depmap

=== 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 "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment
[-]  Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[-]  Packages DOES NOT 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)
[x]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[!]  Latest version is packaged.
I'm not sure about this -- how can you tell with git what the latest actual version is?
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
Rawhide 64-bit

=== Issues ===
1. Missing BuildRequires
2. Verify that this is the latest version

plexus-resources was actually missing from maven-remote-resources Requires. I've fixed that and also added surefire-provider-junit to BR here. This solved build issues on koji for me.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3495184

As far as latest version..it's the highest number tagged version of this package in repository. I know there are a lot of commits after this release and newer tags, but those are for other modules.

Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-artifact-remote-resources.spec
SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-artifact-remote-resources-1.0-2.fc15.src.rpm

For some reason the new versioned BuildRequires doesn't seem to kick in -- it's still happily trying and failing to build, in mock and locally, against maven-remote-resources-plugin-1.2.1-2.fc17.noarch instead of complaining about a missing build requirement.

I believe that this is a short-lived problem that will only last until the new maven-remote-resources-plugin percolates through the build system, but it's still weird that it seems satisfied with 

There are also warnings in the build.log (apparently benign?) about missing maven-enforcer-plugin and maven-dependency-plugin.

I'll approve this soon; I just want to understand what's going on a bit better.

p.s. -- Changing the BuildRequires to maven-remote-resources-plugin >= 1.2.1-3 does seem to work as expected. I guess it's the ".fc17" that's messing up the ">"  version?

Indeed I fixed that version comparison. Yes, there is some problem with former form...

As for the enforcer and dependency plugin, this was caused by trying to generate javadocs when there was no way for them to be generated (no java sources in this package). I fixed that as well by not trying to generate javadocs

Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-artifact-remote-resources.spec
SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-artifact-remote-resources-1.0-3.fc15.src.rpm

(Whoops -- set the review=+ flag too soon earlier ...)

Thanks for those last changes -- looks good now.

APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jetty-artifact-remote-resources
Short Description: Jetty toolchain artifact remote resources 
Owners: sochotni
Branches: 
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Bah, forgot to close this bug. 

Thanks for the review and repos.

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=272940