Bug 227098 - Review Request: plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator
Review Request: plexus-bsh-factory-1.0-0.a7s.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Deepak Bhole
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-02-02 12:50 EST by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 18:14 EST (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-02-27 20:04:04 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
pcheung: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 12:50:33 EST
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.
Comment 2 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-05 10:24:30 EST
i'll take this one.
Comment 3 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-05 11:11:49 EST
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.
Comment 4 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-06 23:47:41 EST
The url for spec file and srpm now point to spec file and srpm for
plexus-runtime-builder. Please fix them. Thanks!
Comment 7 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-09 19:11:57 EST
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.
Comment 8 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-12 10:34:52 EDT
* 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.
Comment 9 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-12 10:44:44 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: plexus-bsh-factory
Short Description: Plexus Component Creator
Owners: dbhole@redhat.com
Branches: devel

Comment 10 Bernard Johnson 2007-04-11 18:49:23 EDT
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.