Bug 806018
Summary: | Review Request: jboss-jsf-2.1-api - JavaServer Faces 2.1 API | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Juan Hernández <juan.hernandez> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Asaf Shakarchi <asaf> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | unspecified | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | asaf, dwmw2, ecohen, mgoldman, notting, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | asaf:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | Unspecified | ||
OS: | Unspecified | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | jboss-jsf-2.1-api-2.0.2-3.fc17 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2012-04-12 02:34:11 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: | 804824 | ||
Bug Blocks: |
Description
Juan Hernández
2012-03-22 17:18:18 UTC
Fixed to use %global instead of %define: jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/jboss-jsf-2.1-api/2.0.2-2 I am taking this for a review. Asaf, are you going to review this or I can take it? Juan, Artifact javax.validation:validation-api:jar:1.0.0.GA is not available, Please add 'BuildRequires:: geronimo-validation' to the spec file so I can continue the review, Thanks, Asaf. Fixed the build requirements. The updated package is available here: http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/jboss-jsf-2.1-api/2.0.2-3 It builds correctly in rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3940852 Can you please explain why you have added 'objenesis' as a required dependency in build time ? It is a lib for instantiating java objects, I hardly believe this is required in build time and not in run time. Either way I can't see a reference for this library at all in the upstream version. Thanks. Without that objenesis package I get the following build error: [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin:2.3.7:manifest (bundle-manifest) on project jboss-jsf-api_2.1_spec: Execution bundle-manifest of goal org.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin:2.3.7:manifest failed: Plugin org.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin:latest or one of its dependencies could not be resolved: The repository system is offline but the artifact org.objenesis:objenesis:jar:1.2 is not available in the local repository. -> [Help 1] Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: Output of rpmlint of the source package: $ rpmlint jboss-jsf-2.1-api-2.0.2-3.fc18.src.rpm jboss-jsf-2.1-api.src: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US jboss-jsf-2.1-api.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jboss-jsf-2.1-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-jsf-2.1-api-2.0.2.Final.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. These warnings are acceptable. Output of rpmlint of the binary packages: $ rpmlint jboss-jsf-2.1-api-2.0.2-3.fc18.noarch.rpm jboss-jsf-2.1-api.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US jboss-jsf-2.1-api.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. This warning is acceptable. [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. Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3940852 [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: CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions. [x] 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. [x] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [x] 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. Checked using a recursive diff of the sources. [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. [-] 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. [x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x] 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, ...) [x] 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. [x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [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 [-] 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 [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] 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) [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3943207 ================ *** APPROVED *** ================ New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jboss-jsf-2.1-api Short Description: JavaServer Faces 2.1 API Owners: jhernand Branches: f17 InitialCC: goldmann Git done (by process-git-requests). jboss-jsf-2.1-api-2.0.2-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-jsf-2.1-api-2.0.2-3.fc17 jboss-jsf-2.1-api-2.0.2-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. jboss-jsf-2.1-api-2.0.2-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. |