Bug 227081 - Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool.
Review Request: maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp - Maven JXR is a source cross referencing ...
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Deepak Bhole
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-02-02 12:44 EST by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 18:13 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-02-27 20:02:54 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
dbhole: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 12:44:40 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp.src.rpm
Description: Maven JXR is a source cross referencing tool.

Javadoc for maven-jxr.
Comment 1 Tania Bento 2007-02-27 13:43:35 EST
Here are the links to an updated spec file and source rpm:

SPEC FILE:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/256/maven-jxr.spec

SOURCE RPM:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/257/maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp.1.src.rpm
Comment 2 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-06 19:23:25 EST
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

* 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
 OK

* 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-jxr non-standard-group Development/Java
  W: maven-jxr no-documentation
  W: maven-jxr non-standard-group Development/Java
  W: maven-jxr mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47)

  First 3 are OK. Last one should 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

* 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 (with %define _without_maven

* BuildRequires are proper
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 OK

X * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
  These could use expanding, but nothing more is available on project side, so
  OK.

  Would be nice to have summary be just: "Source cross referencing tool"
  though
 
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
 OK (see above)

* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
 OK

* specfile written in American English
 OK

* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
  
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b
 OK

* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
 OK

* don't use rpath
 OK

* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
 OK

* 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

* package should own all directories and files
 OK

* 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

* package should build in mock
 OK

Comment 3 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-06 19:46:32 EST
Also, at the top of the spec file, change '%define _with_gcj_support 0' to: 
%define _with_gcj_support 1
Comment 4 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-06 20:18:48 EST
Also, delete the %define gcj_support 0 there..
Comment 5 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-06 20:34:33 EST
Sorry for so many updates.. just caught something in another package that
applies here too (missed because it'll happen only when built with maven):

Change:
%if %{with_maven}
%if %{gcj_support}
%dir %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/maven-jxr-1.0.jar.*
%endif

to

%if %{gcj_support}
%dir %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/maven-jxr-1.0.jar.*
%endif
%if %{with_maven}
Comment 6 Tania Bento 2007-03-13 13:08:18 EDT
> X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
>   - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
>   W: maven-jxr non-standard-group Development/Java
>   W: maven-jxr no-documentation
>   W: maven-jxr non-standard-group Development/Java
>   W: maven-jxr mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 47)
> 
>   First 3 are OK. Last one should be fixed.

Fixed.

> X * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
>   These could use expanding, but nothing more is available on project side, so
>   OK.
> 
>   Would be nice to have summary be just: "Source cross referencing tool"
>   though

Fixed.

>Also, at the top of the spec file, change '%define _with_gcj_support 0' to: 
>%define _with_gcj_support 1

Fixed.

>Sorry for so many updates.. just caught something in another package that
>applies here too (missed because it'll happen only when built with maven):
>
>Change:
>%if %{with_maven}
>%if %{gcj_support}
>%dir %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
>%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/maven-jxr-1.0.jar.*
>%endif
>
>to
>
>%if %{gcj_support}
>%dir %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
>%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}/maven-jxr-1.0.jar.*
>%endif
>%if %{with_maven}

Fixed.

I've also built this package on mock.


Here are the links to the updates spec file and source rpm:

SPEC FILE:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/256/maven-jxr.spec

SOURCE RPM: 
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/257/maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp.1.src.rpm

Comment 7 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-13 14:56:08 EDT
There is a typo in the spec. It says %define _with_gcj_supoprt 1 instead of
%define _with_gcj_support 1

I will approve once that is fixed.
Comment 8 Tania Bento 2007-03-13 15:37:22 EDT
(In reply to comment #7)
> There is a typo in the spec. It says %define _with_gcj_supoprt 1 instead of
> %define _with_gcj_support 1
> 
> I will approve once that is fixed.

Sorry about the typo.  
Here are the links to the updates spec file and source rpm:
SPEC FILE:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/256/maven-scm.spec
SOURCE RPM:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/257/maven-scm-1.0-0.1.b3.2jpp.1.src.rpm
Comment 9 Tania Bento 2007-03-13 15:39:14 EDT
Sorry... Wrong links.. Here are the correct ones:
SPEC FILE:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/256/maven-jxr.spec
SOURCE RPM:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/257/maven-jxr-1.0-2jpp.1.src.rpm
Comment 10 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-13 15:44:26 EDT
APPROVED.
Comment 11 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-13 15:45:30 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: maven-jxr
Short Description: Source cross referencing tool
Owners: dbhole@redhat.com
Branches: devel
Comment 12 Bernard Johnson 2007-04-11 18:49:06 EDT
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

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