Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.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-bsh-factory.
Here are the links to the updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/238/plexus-bsh-factory.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/239/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.src.rpm
i'll take this one.
Please fix items marked by X: 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} X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - the tar command in the comments will create a plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-alpha-7-SNAPSHOT.tar.gz, but Source0 is %{name}-src.tar.gz. - 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-bsh-factory non-standard-group Development/Java -this is ok W: plexus-bsh-factory mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 57) -please fix this * 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 - don't we need a %define _without_maven 1 for building in plague? - 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 $RPM_OPT_FLAGS * don't use %makeinstall * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present * %clean should be present * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs will do these when issues are fixed * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package should build on i386 * package should build in mock will try to build after issues are fixed, and BR's are built.
The url for spec file and srpm now point to spec file and srpm for plexus-runtime-builder. Please fix them. Thanks!
Sorry about that... Here are the correct urls: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/238/plexus-bsh-factory.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/239/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.src.rpm
New spec and srpm: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-bsh-factory/plexus-bsh-factory.spec http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-bsh-factory/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
er, should have stated what I fixed: 1. BR's are fixed 2. Files section is fixed 3. Tarball creation command is fixed 4. License is fixed 5. Spacing is fixed Since the project does not include a License.txt, there is nothing to put s %doc for that.
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs built in mock: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-bsh-factory-*rpm W: plexus-bsh-factory non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-bsh-factory non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-bsh-factory no-documentation [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm jpackage-utils >= 0:1.7.2 ant bsh 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-bsh-factory-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm (none)[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-develox86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7. plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm bsh-factory-1.0.jar.so()(64bit) config(plexus-bsh-factory) = 0:1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7 plexus-bsh-factory = 0:1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7 [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-jpp17-pcheung/result/plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh bsh classworlds config(plexus-bsh-factory) = 0:1.0-0.1.a7s.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-bsh-factory-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.a7s.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-bsh-factory-debuginfo-1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm bsh-factory-1.0.jar.so.debug()(64bit) plexus-bsh-factory-debuginfo = 0:1.0-0.1.a7s.2jpp.1.fc7 APPROVED. In the future when fixing defining gcj_support to 1, the if condition should probably be before the the %post[,un] so that there won't be an empty %post[,un]. Reassigning to you to be built in brew.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: plexus-bsh-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