Bug 803376

Summary: Review Request: weld-parent - Parent POM for Weld
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Marek Goldmann <mgoldman>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: mefoster, notting, package-review, ricardo.arguello
Target Milestone: ---Flags: mefoster: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: weld-parent-17-2.fc17 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2012-04-12 02:03:32 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 803381, 805468    

Comment 1 Mary Ellen Foster 2012-03-19 15:05:51 UTC
I will review this package

Comment 2 Mary Ellen Foster 2012-03-19 15:29:29 UTC
Package Review
==============

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[ ]  Rpmlint output:
weld-parent.spec: W: no-%build-section
The spec file does not contain a %build section.  Even if some packages don't
directly need it, section markers may be overridden in rpm's configuration to
provide additional "under the hood" functionality, such as injection of
automatic -debuginfo subpackages.  Add the section, even if empty.

[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 definition is not present
[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: ASL 2.0
[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.
MD5SUM this package    : 73d0f0fdbacad7684326e96b4b717175
MD5SUM upstream package: 73d0f0fdbacad7684326e96b4b717175
[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 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.
[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x]  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
[x]  Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]  Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro

=== Other suggestions ===
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: 2012-03-19


Suggestions:
- As suggested by sochotni on IRC, add a %build section containing "mvn-rpmbuild install" and update BuildRequires as appropriate
- Suggest using %{version} (and maybe also %{name}) throughout the Source0 URL

Comment 4 Mary Ellen Foster 2012-03-19 16:26:21 UTC
Looks good,

APPROVED

Comment 5 Marek Goldmann 2012-03-19 18:06:09 UTC
Thanks for review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name:      weld-parent
Short Description: Parent POM for Weld
Owners:            goldmann
Branches:          f17

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-03-19 18:54:18 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2012-03-19 19:40:28 UTC
weld-parent-17-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/weld-parent-17-2.fc17

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2012-03-20 06:04:40 UTC
Package weld-parent-17-2.fc17:
* should fix your issue,
* was pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository,
* should be available at your local mirror within two days.
Update it with:
# su -c 'yum update --enablerepo=updates-testing weld-parent-17-2.fc17'
as soon as you are able to.
Please go to the following url:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-4215/weld-parent-17-2.fc17
then log in and leave karma (feedback).

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-04-12 02:03:32 UTC
weld-parent-17-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.