Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven-doxia-1.0-0.a7.3jpp.src.rpm Description: Doxia is a content generation framework which aims to provide its users with powerful techniques for generating static and dynamic content. Doxia can be used to generate static sites in addition to being incorporated into dynamic content generation systems like blogs, wikis and content management systems. Javadoc for maven-doxia.
Here are the links to an updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/261/maven-doxia.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/262/maven-doxia-1.0-0.1.a7.3jpp.1.src.rpm
MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved OK - not a kernel module OK - not shareware OK - is it covered by patents? OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK - no binary firmware OK * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common OK * specfile name matches %{name} OK X * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah Tar command is incorrect. Should be: tar czf maven-doxia-1.0a7.tar.gz maven-doxia/ * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there W: maven-doxia non-standard-group Development/Java W: maven-doxia no-documentation W: maven-doxia non-standard-group Development/Java W: maven-doxia mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47) First 3 are OK. Last needs to be fixed. * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * Distribution tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period OK (see below for change to summary content) * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK (on jpp stack) * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here OK X * summary should be a short and concise description of the package Summary should be: 'Content generation framework' * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath X * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) /etc/maven/fragments/maven-doxia is not a config file and should not be marked so. * GUI apps should contain .desktop files OK * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK X * package should own all directories and files Change: %if %{with_maven} %if %{gcj_support} %dir %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/core-1.0-alpha-7.jar.* %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/decoration-model-1.0-alpha-7.jar.* %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/sink-api-1.0-alpha-7.jar.* %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/site-renderer-1.0-alpha-7.jar.* %endif to: %if %{gcj_support} %dir %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/core-1.0-alpha-7.jar.* %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/decoration-model-1.0-alpha-7.jar.* %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/sink-api-1.0-alpha-7.jar.* %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/site-renderer-1.0-alpha-7.jar.* %endif %if %{with_maven} * there should be no %files duplicates OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime OK * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs OK SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK * package should build on i386 OK after fixing %files * package should build in mock OK after fixing %files. Built on jpp stack due to missing plexus-velocity. Additional notes: 1. Package for built on jpackage stack 2. '%define _with_gcj_support 0' should become '%define _with_gcj_support 1' 3. '%define gcj_support 0' should be removed
> X * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on > how to generate the the source drop; ie. > # svn export blah/tag blah > # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah > > Tar command is incorrect. Should be: tar czf maven-doxia-1.0a7.tar.gz maven-doxia/ Changed it to: tar czf maven-doxia-1.0.a7-src.tar.gz maven-doxia/ > X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > W: maven-doxia non-standard-group Development/Java > W: maven-doxia no-documentation > W: maven-doxia non-standard-group Development/Java > W: maven-doxia mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47) > > First 3 are OK. Last needs to be fixed. Fixed. > X * summary should be a short and concise description of the package > Summary should be: 'Content generation framework' Fixed. > X * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) > /etc/maven/fragments/maven-doxia is not a config file and should not be > marked so. Fixed. > X * package should own all directories and files > Change: > > %if %{with_maven} > [...] > %if %{with_maven} Fixed. Here are the links to the updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/261/maven-doxia.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/262/maven-doxia-1.0-0.1.a7.3jpp.1.src.rpm
APPROVED.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: maven-doxia Short Description: Content generation framework Owners: dbhole Branches: devel
Pardon the bugzilla spam. This package appears to have been approved, imported, and built. If that is the case, please close this bug RESOLVE -> NEXTRELEASE as documented in the package review process: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageReviewProcess?#head-df921556b35438a4c78b4b6a790151ea568e8f9e