Bug 227082 - Review Request: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging
Summary: Review Request: maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp - Basic API for lightweight logging
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review   
(Show other bugs)
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Deepak Bhole
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2007-02-02 17:45 UTC by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 23:13 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-02-28 01:03:04 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
dbhole: fedora-review+
petersen: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 17:45:04 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven-scm-1.0-0.b3.2jpp.src.rpm
Description: Basic API for lightweight logging.

Tests for maven-scm.

Javadoc for maven-scm.

Comment 1 Tania Bento 2007-02-27 19:58:30 UTC
Here are the links to an updated spec file and source rpm:

SPEC FILE:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/259/maven-scm.spec

SOURCE RPM:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/260/maven-scm-1.0-0.1.b3.2jpp.1.src.rpm

Comment 2 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-07 00:48:59 UTC
X = error

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

   Change 'tar czf maven-scm.tar.gz maven-scm/' to:
   'tar czf maven-scm-1.0-beta-3.tar.gz maven-scm/'

* 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
 N/A (see below)

* 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 jpackage stack

* BuildRequires are proper
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 N/A (see end)

X * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
  Summary is incorrect. Should be:
  'Common API for doing SCM operations'

X * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
    instructions)
  Description should change to (with 80 char limit / line):

  Maven SCM supports Maven 2.x plugins (e.g. maven-release-plugin) and other
  tools (e.g. Continuum) in providing them a common API for doing SCM
  operations. 

X * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
    Comment on line 117 needs to be broken up. See above.

* 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
 

* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs

SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
 OK

* package should build on i386
 OK on jpp stack (see below)

* package should build in mock
 OK on jpp stack after correcting BR's as specified below.

Additional notes:

1. Correct BR's/Requires to:

BuildRequires:  jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6
BuildRequires:  maven2 >= 2.0.4-6
BuildRequires:  maven2-plugin-compiler
BuildRequires:  maven2-plugin-install
BuildRequires:  maven2-plugin-jar
BuildRequires:  maven2-plugin-javadoc
BuildRequires:  maven2-plugin-plugin
BuildRequires:  maven2-plugin-release
BuildRequires:  maven2-plugin-resources
BuildRequires:  maven2-plugin-surefire
BuildRequires:  maven2-common-poms >= 1.0-3
BuildRequires:  modello >= 1.0-0.a8
BuildRequires:  modello-maven-plugin >= 1.0-0.a8
BuildRequires:  plexus-utils >= 1.2
BuildRequires:  saxon-scripts

Requires:       junit >= 3.8.2
Requires:       jakarta-commons-collections >= 3.1
Requires:       modello >= 1.0-0.a8
Requires:       modello-maven-plugin >= 1.0-0.a8
Requires:       oro >= 2.0.8
Requires:       plexus-utils >= 1.2
Requires:       velocity >= 1.4

2. At the top of the spec file, change '%define _with_gcj_support 0' to:
   %define _with_gcj_support 1

3. Package was built on jpackage stack as it requires maven2 to compile.


Comment 3 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-07 01:19:06 UTC
Also, delete the %define gcj_support 0 there..

Comment 4 Tania Bento 2007-03-13 19:22:33 UTC
> 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
> 
>    Change 'tar czf maven-scm.tar.gz maven-scm/' to:
>    'tar czf maven-scm-1.0-beta-3.tar.gz maven-scm/'

Fixed.
 
> 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
>   Summary is incorrect. Should be:
>   'Common API for doing SCM operations'

Fixed.

> X * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
>     instructions)
>   Description should change to (with 80 char limit / line):
> 
>   Maven SCM supports Maven 2.x plugins (e.g. maven-release-plugin) and other
>   tools (e.g. Continuum) in providing them a common API for doing SCM
>   operations. 

Fixed.

> X * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
>     Comment on line 117 needs to be broken up. See above.

Fixed.

When you run rpmlint on the binary RPMS, you get the following output:
W: maven-scm non-standard-group Development/Java
W: maven-scm non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven-scm
W: maven-scm-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
--> These are okay.
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length 
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-clearcase/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-starteam/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-cvs-commons/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-bazaar/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/manager-plexus/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-cvsexe/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-svn-commons/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/client/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-perforce/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length /usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/api/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-cvstest/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length /usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/test/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-local/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-vss/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-svnexe/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/provider-svntest/package-list
E: maven-scm-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-scm-1.0/plugin/package-list
--> These are okay because this is an autogenerated file and beyong packager
control.
W: maven-scm-test non-standard-group Development/Java
W: maven-scm-test no-documentation
--> These can be ignored.

 

Comment 5 Tania Bento 2007-03-13 19:26:22 UTC
Sorry... forgot to add the links to the updated spec file and source rpm.  Here
are they are:

SPEC FILE:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/259/maven-scm.spec

SOURCE RPM:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/260/maven-scm-1.0-0.1.b3.2jpp.1.src.rpm

Comment 6 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-13 19:47:56 UTC
rpmlint message justification is acceptable.

APPROVED.

Comment 7 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-13 19:49:04 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: maven-jxr
Short Description: Common API for doing SCM operations
Owners: dbhole@redhat.com
Branches: devel

Comment 8 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-20 04:15:23 UTC
Re-requesting. I had the package name wrong. A module is needed for 'maven-scm'

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: maven-scm
Short Description: Common API for doing SCM operations
Owners: dbhole@redhat.com
Branches: devel

Comment 9 Jens Petersen 2007-03-20 08:19:35 UTC
done by dgilmore

Comment 10 Bernard Johnson 2007-04-11 22:46:59 UTC
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.