Bug 227103 - Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Handler Component
Review Request: plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp - Plexus Interactivity Han...
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Matt Wringe
Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2007-02-02 12:52 EST by Rafael H. Schloming
Modified: 2014-12-01 18:14 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: 1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.2.fc7
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2007-06-22 10:08:20 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
nsantos: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 12:52:52 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp.spec
SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.a5.2jpp.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-interactivity.
Comment 1 Andrew Overholt 2007-02-16 17:16:25 EST
Updated spec and SRPM:


I can't build this yet due to jline not being finished.
Comment 2 Nuno Santos 2007-02-16 18:07:12 EST
Link to updated SRPM above is broken...

Here's a partial review based on the specfile:


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

OK * package is named appropriately
OK - match upstream tarball or project name
OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec
OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
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 - use acronyms for licences where common
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 %
NA * license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
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
OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
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
NA * 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

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 4 Nuno Santos 2007-03-13 15:35:26 EDT
I'm getting the following rpmlint warning, other than that everything is fine:

$rpmlint plexus-interactivity-1.0-0.1.a5.2jpp.1.src.rpm
W: plexus-interactivity mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 167)

I'll mark "approved" as soon as that's fixed.
Comment 6 Nuno Santos 2007-03-13 17:08:19 EDT

Assigning to owner.
Comment 7 Matt Wringe 2007-03-13 17:20:14 EDT
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: plexus-interactivity
Short Description: Plexus Interactivity Handler Component
Owners: mwringe@redhat.com
Branches: devel

Comment 8 Matt Wringe 2007-06-22 10:08:20 EDT
Forgot to close this bug from a while ago. This package is already in Fedora 7

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.