Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 227108
Review Request: plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp - Plexus XML RPC Component
Last modified: 2014-12-01 18:14:01 EST
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.b4.3jpp.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-xmlrpc.
Here is an updated source rpm and spec file: SPEC FILE: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/230/plexus-xmlrpc.spec SOURCE RPM: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/231/plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.1.b4.3jpp.1.src.rpm
plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.1.b4.3jpp.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) OK * 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-xmlrpc-1.0-0.1.b4.3jpp.1.src.rpm W: plexus-xmlrpc non-standard-group Development/Java W: plexus-xmlrpc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 63) (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 -- a couple of lines are longer than 80 chars (lines 147, 153) -- 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: OK * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ?? * package should build on i386 ?? * package should build in mock
> NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there > > -- > $ rpmlint plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.1.b4.3jpp.1.src.rpm > W: plexus-xmlrpc mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 63) > (minor warnings, should be fine) > -- Again, rpmlint does not generate this warning for me. This is very strange, espeically since we are running the same version of rpmlint. > NO * make sure lines are <= 80 characters > > -- > a couple of lines are longer than 80 chars (lines 147, 153) > -- I noticed this before and had tried fixing it, but I would have problems building. So, I decided to just leave them. I've also been told that as long as rpmlint doesn't complain, then not to worry about it. Whether there is anything else you would like me to fix or not, let me know. When I hear from you I will build this package on mock. Thanks.
OK, thanks for addressing those, I agree they're fine... I'm marking as fedora-review+
Please follow the directions at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: plexus-xmlrpc Short Description: Plexus XML RPC Component Owners: dbhole@redhat.com Branches: devel
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/177/294/plexus-xmlrpc.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/293/plexus-xmlrpc-1.0-0.1.b4.3jpp.1.src.rpm
Built with ant in extras. Keeping open until built with maven2.
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