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.
Updated files can be found here: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/289/maven-wagon.spec https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/290/maven-wagon-1.0-0.1.a5.3jpp.1.src.rpm
Updated again: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/297/maven-wagon.spec https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/298/maven-wagon-1.0-0.1.a5.3jpp.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 (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?
(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
(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.
Approved.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: maven-wagon Short Description: Tools to manage artifacts and deployment Owners: mwringe Branches: devel InitialCC: