Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp.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-velocity.
An updated source rpm and spec file can be found here: http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/plexus-velocity/ Just a note, the md5sums do not match, but I've verified that the contents are the same.
X = error MUST: * package is named appropriately - 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 X * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved Unable to verify license of project. Please send note to user mailing list to clarify: http://plexus.codehaus.org/plexus-components/plexus-velocity/mail-lists.html - 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 X * license field matches the actual license. Unable to verify license of project. Please send note to user mailing list to clarify: http://plexus.codehaus.org/plexus-components/plexus-velocity/mail-lists.html * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common N/A (see above) * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK X * license text included in package and marked with %doc Included license is from the maven castor plugin. This project has no license.txt included in the source, and the file should therefore be removed. * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there W: plexus-velocity non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-velocity no-documentation W: plexus-velocity-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: plexus-velocity non-standard-group Development/Java All warnings are OK. * changelog should be in one of these formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * Distribution tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK X * BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here Does not build in mock * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters Line 141 is > 80, but it is okay because it is code, and more legible this way * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b OK * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK * don't use rpath OK * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) OK * GUI apps should contain .desktop files OK * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK * use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable OK * package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content 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 OK * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs OK * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs OK SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK * package should build on i386 OK X * package should build in mock Does not build Notes: Package builds in mock after removing the %dooc entry (which should go away anyway) and after adding a dependency on ant-nodeps.
> X * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? > - OSI-approved > Unable to verify license of project. Please send note to user mailing list > to clarify: > > http://plexus.codehaus.org/plexus-components/plexus-velocity/mail-lists.html I've sent an email and someone was kind enough to respond. Plexus-velocity is under the MIT license, but Velocity itself is under the Apache Software license. > X * license field matches the actual license. > Unable to verify license of project. Please send note to user mailing list to > clarify: > > http://plexus.codehaus.org/plexus-components/plexus-velocity/mail-lists.html See above. > X * license text included in package and marked with %doc > Included license is from the maven castor plugin. This project has no > license.txt included in the source, and the file should therefore be > removed. I've removed the %doc line in %files. > X * BuildRequires are proper > - builds in mock will flush out problems here > Does not build in mock Fixed. > X * package should build in mock > Does not build Now builds in mock. Here is the link to the updated spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/273/plexus-velocity.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/274/plexus-velocity-1.1.2-2jpp.1.src.rpm
Approved.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: plexus-velocity Short Description: Plexus Velocity Component Owners: mwringe Branches: devel InitialCC: