Bug 227095 - Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server
Summary: Review Request: plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp - Plexus Application Server
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 17:49 UTC by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 23:14 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-02-28 01:03:53 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
nsantos: fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 17:49:44 UTC
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-appserver-1.0-0.a5.3jpp.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-appserver.

Comment 2 Tania Bento 2007-02-20 19:19:21 UTC
Sorry... I posted that in the wrong bug.  

Comment 4 Nuno Santos 2007-02-20 21:46:52 UTC
plexus-appserver-1.0-0.1.a5.3jpp.1.src.rpm

Legend:
OK: passes criteria
NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers)
NA: non applicable
??: unable to verify

MUST:
OK * package is named appropriately
OK - 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?
OK - 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.
OK * specfile name matches %{name}
OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
OK * correct buildroot
OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
NA * 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/)
NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there

--
$ rpmlint plexus-appserver-1.0-0.1.a5.3jpp.1.src.rpm 
W: plexus-appserver non-standard-group Development/Java
W: plexus-appserver mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 91)
(minor warnings, should be fine)
--

OK * changelog should be in one of these formats:
OK * Packager tag should not be used
OK * Vendor tag should not be used
OK * use License and not Copyright 
OK * Summary tag should not end in a period
NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK * specfile is legible
?? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
?? * BuildRequires are proper
OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters

--
lines 59, 147, 153 are longer than 80 chars
--

OK * specfile written in American English
OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK * don't use rpath
OK * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
OK * use macros appropriately and consistently
OK * don't use %makeinstall
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK * package should probably not be relocatable
OK * package contains code
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
NA * 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
?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs

SHOULD:
NA * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
?? * package should build on i386
?? * package should build in mock


Comment 5 Nuno Santos 2007-02-20 21:52:17 UTC
Btw, this section:

%if %{gcj_support}
if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ]
then
  %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
fi
%endif

seems to be repeated in the spec file (lines 177-182)

Comment 6 Tania Bento 2007-02-21 16:53:38 UTC
> NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
>  - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
> 
> --
> $ rpmlint plexus-appserver-1.0-0.1.a5.3jpp.1.src.rpm 
> W: plexus-appserver mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 91)
> (minor warnings, should be fine)

Again, rpmlint does not generate this warning for me.

>Btw, this section:
>
>%if %{gcj_support}
>if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ]
>then
>  %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
>fi
>%endif
>
>seems to be repeated in the spec file (lines 177-182)

Fixed.

If there's anything else let me know.  When I hear back from you, I'll build it
in mock.

Thanks.


Comment 7 Nuno Santos 2007-02-21 20:58:45 UTC
Marking fedora-review+

Comment 8 Dennis Gilmore 2007-03-12 03:19:17 UTC
please follow the procedure at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure

Comment 9 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-12 13:36:06 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: plexus-appserver
Short Description: Plexus Application Server
Owners: dbhole@redhat.com
Branches: devel


Comment 10 Tania Bento 2007-03-12 20:55:57 UTC
There was an error in the spec file that I posted above.  This error was only
brought to my attention when trying to build another package that is dependent
on this one.  I fixed the error, built it on an i386 machine and built it on
mock.  Everything built fine.

Here is the link to an updated spec file and source rpm:

SPEC FILE:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/291/plexus-appserver.spec

SOURCE RPM:
https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/292/plexus-appserver-1.0-0.1.a5.3jpp.1.src.rpm


Comment 11 Bernard Johnson 2007-04-11 22:48:54 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.