Bug 227085 - Review Request: maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Maven Wagon
Review Request: maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Maven Wagon
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Tania Bento
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-02-02 12:46 EST by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 18:13 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2007-03-15 13:52:44 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
tbento: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 12:46:25 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/maven-wagon-1.0-0.a5.3jpp.src.rpm
Description: Maven Wagon is a transport abstraction that is used in Maven's
artifact and repository handling code. Currently wagon has the
following providers:
* File
* HTTP
* FTP
* SSH/SCP
* WebDAV (in progress)

Javadoc for maven-wagon.

Documents for maven-wagon.
Comment 3 Tania Bento 2007-03-14 11:50:08 EDT
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 (see below)

 - 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

 The md5sum do not match.  When I do a diff, I get the following:
  diff -r
wagon-1.0-alpha-5/wagon-provider-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/wagon/util/IoUtils.java
../upstream/wagon-1.0-alpha-5/wagon-provider-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/wagon/util/IoUtils.java
80c80
<  * @version CVS $Revision: 290775 $ $Date: 2005-09-21 20:25:08 +0200 (Wed, 21
Sep 2005) $
---
>  * @version CVS $Revision: 290775 $ $Date: 2005-09-21 14:25:08 -0400 (Wed, 21
Sep 2005) $

 I think this is okay.
   
X skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
 Summary should be "Tools to manage artifacts and deployment".

* 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

X license text included in package and marked with %doc
 There is no license text included in package, so this is 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 non-standard-group Development/Java
 Both of these warnings can be ignored.

* 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 

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

* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
 OK. 

* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
  instructions)
 OK
  
X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
 OK (only code lines are > 80)
 There are some lines with more than 80 characters, but they are code lines and
   rpmlint did not complain about them, so this is 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 (see additional notes)

* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
 OK

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

* package should build on i386
 OK 

* package should build in mock
 OK 

Other Notes:
- Removed "%define section free".
- Should gcj support be added?
Comment 4 Matt Wringe 2007-03-14 13:44:08 EDT
(In reply to comment #3)
> ...
> 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
> 
>  The md5sum do not match.  When I do a diff, I get the following:
>   diff -r
>
wagon-1.0-alpha-5/wagon-provider-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/wagon/util/IoUtils.java
>
../upstream/wagon-1.0-alpha-5/wagon-provider-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/wagon/util/IoUtils.java
> 80c80
> <  * @version CVS $Revision: 290775 $ $Date: 2005-09-21 20:25:08 +0200 (Wed, 21
> Sep 2005) $
> ---
> >  * @version CVS $Revision: 290775 $ $Date: 2005-09-21 14:25:08 -0400 (Wed, 21
> Sep 2005) $
> 
>  I think this is okay.
Hmm, interesting, I just did another source export so this should not be an
issue anymore
    
> X skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
>  Summary should be "Tools to manage artifacts and deployment".
> 
> * 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
> 
> X license text included in package and marked with %doc
>  There is no license text included in package, so this is 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 non-standard-group Development/Java
>  Both of these warnings can be ignored.
> 
> 
> ...  
> X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
>  OK (only code lines are > 80)
>  There are some lines with more than 80 characters, but they are code lines and
>    rpmlint did not complain about them, so this is OK.
The 80 character length restriction only applies to the description.

> 
> ...
> Other Notes:
> - Removed "%define section free".
removed

> - Should gcj support be added?
since this package will be updated at a later date to support a maven2 build, I
would suggest adding the gcj support aot bits at that time. 

New Files:
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/301/maven-wagon.spec
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/302/maven-wagon-1.0-0.1.a5.3jpp.1.src.rpm
Comment 5 Tania Bento 2007-03-14 14:21:41 EDT
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> > ...
> > 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
> > 
> >  The md5sum do not match.  When I do a diff, I get the following:
> >   diff -r
> >
>
wagon-1.0-alpha-5/wagon-provider-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/wagon/util/IoUtils.java
> >
>
../upstream/wagon-1.0-alpha-5/wagon-provider-api/src/main/java/org/apache/maven/wagon/util/IoUtils.java
> > 80c80
> > <  * @version CVS $Revision: 290775 $ $Date: 2005-09-21 20:25:08 +0200 (Wed, 21
> > Sep 2005) $
> > ---
> > >  * @version CVS $Revision: 290775 $ $Date: 2005-09-21 14:25:08 -0400 (Wed, 21
> > Sep 2005) $
> > 
> >  I think this is okay.
> Hmm, interesting, I just did another source export so this should not be an
> issue anymore.

Looks good.
     
> > X skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
> >  Summary should be "Tools to manage artifacts and deployment".

Looks good.

> > - Should gcj support be added?
> since this package will be updated at a later date to support a maven2 build, I
> would suggest adding the gcj support aot bits at that time. 

Sure.  Sounds good.

I've built it on mock with no problems.
Comment 6 Tania Bento 2007-03-14 14:22:26 EDT
Approved.
Comment 7 Matt Wringe 2007-03-14 14:27:05 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: maven-wagon
Short Description: Tools to manage artifacts and deployment
Owners: mwringe@redhat.com
Branches: devel
InitialCC:

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