Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp.src.rpm Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n, velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage. Javadoc for plexus-ant-factory.
Here are the links to the updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/241/plexus-ant-factory.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/240/plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.src.rpm
I'll take this one as well.
Please fix items marked by X, thanks! MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - 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 * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware X license field matches the actual license. This is MIT-Style license * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common * specfile name matches %{name} * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - md5sum mismatch, but diff -r shows contents are the same. * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) X license text included in package and marked with %doc - no license marked with %doc * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output W: plexus-ant-factory non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-ant-factory mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 57) * changelog format is ok * Packager tag should not be used * Vendor tag should not be used * Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) X specfile is legible - should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0 - the %define gcj_support .... doesn't seems like it can be split up into multiple lines - for the %post and %postun, the if condition should probably be before the the %post[,un] so that there won't be an empty %post[,un] if gcj_support is 0. * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which * summary should be a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) * 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 * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs will do these when issues are fixed * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc no license text marked with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock will try to build after issues are fixed, and BR's are built.
Missing BR: BuildRequires: maven2-plugin-release
New spec and srpm: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-ant-factory/plexus-ant-factory.spec http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-ant-factory/plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm 1. BR's are fixed 2. Files section is fixed 3. Tarball creation command is fixed 4. License is fixed 5. Spacing is fixed Since the project does not include a License.txt, there is nothing to put as %doc for that.
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm jpackage-utils >= 0:1.7.2 ant classworlds plexus-container-default plexus-utils java-gcj-compat-devel rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm (none) [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm ant-factory-1.0.jar.so()(64bit) config(plexus-ant-factory) = 0:1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7 plexus-ant-factory = 0:1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh ant classworlds config(plexus-ant-factory) = 0:1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7 java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils >= 0:1.7.2 jpackage-utils >= 0:1.7.2 libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) plexus-container-default plexus-utils rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-ant-factory-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-ant-factory-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm ant-factory-1.0.jar.so.debug()(64bit) plexus-ant-factory-debuginfo = 0:1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs built in mock [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-ant-factory-*rpm W: plexus-ant-factory non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-ant-factory non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-ant-factory no-documentation APPROVED. Reassigning for building in plague.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: plexus-ant-factory Short Description: Plexus Component Creator 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