Bug 1149212 - Review Request: springframework-plugin - Simple plugin infrastructure
Summary: Review Request: springframework-plugin - Simple plugin infrastructure
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michael Simacek
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 1178149
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2014-10-03 14:14 UTC by gil cattaneo
Modified: 2015-02-07 03:53 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: springframework-plugin-1.1.0-2.fc21
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2015-02-07 03:53:33 UTC
Type: ---
msimacek: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description gil cattaneo 2014-10-03 14:14:42 UTC
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-plugin.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-plugin-1.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
Spring Plugin provides a more pragmatic approach to plugin
development by providing the core flexibility of having
plugin implementations extending a core system's functionality
but of course not delivering core OSGi features like dynamic
class loading or run-time installation and deployment of plugins.
Although Spring Plugin thus is not nearly as powerful as OSGi,
it servers poor man's requirements to build a modular extensible
Fedora Account System Username: gil

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7756101

Comment 3 Michael Simacek 2015-01-28 10:00:12 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- No license file installed, please attach a copy as a source until upstream
  includes it
  (Note that there has been an update to the packaging guidelines regarding
   licenses - %license macro, please use it already;
   see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines)

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[?]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/msimacek/reviews/1149212
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/springframework-plugin
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
     Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
     pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
     utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== SHOULD items =====

[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: springframework-plugin-1.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
Cannot parse rpmlint output:

springframework-plugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

springframework-plugin-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-plugin/archive/1.1.0.RELEASE.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bbb38bb82d2b159b01a71df6fb2a2b841cd412725c3e0cf3bcfe1d14639c1bbe
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bbb38bb82d2b159b01a71df6fb2a2b841cd412725c3e0cf3bcfe1d14639c1bbe

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1149212
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby

Comment 5 Mikolaj Izdebski 2015-01-28 11:15:20 UTC
A simpler way to generate OSGi manifest would be by using <packaging>bundle</packaging>

Comment 6 gil cattaneo 2015-01-28 11:28:09 UTC
(In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #5)
> A simpler way to generate OSGi manifest would be by using
> <packaging>bundle</packaging>

Thanks for the suggestion!

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-plugin.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-plugin-1.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm

Comment 7 Mikolaj Izdebski 2015-01-28 11:31:29 UTC
You don't even need the execution. Bundle packaging has implicit execution of bundle plugin.

Comment 8 gil cattaneo 2015-01-28 11:40:56 UTC
(In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #7)
> You don't even need the execution. Bundle packaging has implicit execution
> of bundle plugin.

if not specifically the use of Maven-bundle-plugin gives me this error
[ERROR]   The project org.springframework.plugin:spring-plugin-core:1.1.0.RELEASE (/home/gil/rpmbuild/BUILD/spring-plugin-1.1.0.RELEASE/core/pom.xml) has 1 error
[ERROR]     Unknown packaging: bundle @ line 3, column 13

Comment 11 Michael Simacek 2015-01-28 12:18:36 UTC
Now it looks ok, APPROVED

Comment 12 gil cattaneo 2015-01-28 12:22:54 UTC
Thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: springframework-plugin
Short Description: Simple plugin infrastructure
Upstream URL: https://github.com/SpringSource/spring-plugin
Owners: gil
Branches: f21
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 13 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-01-28 12:55:47 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2015-01-28 13:41:57 UTC
springframework-plugin-1.1.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2015-01-30 04:39:55 UTC
springframework-plugin-1.1.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2015-02-07 03:53:33 UTC
springframework-plugin-1.1.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.