Bug 518310 - Review Request: plexus-classworlds - Plexus Classworlds Classloader Framework
Summary: Review Request: plexus-classworlds - Plexus Classworlds Classloader Framework
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Alexander Kurtakov
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2009-08-19 19:46 UTC by Andrew Overholt
Modified: 2009-08-20 15:23 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2009-08-20 15:23:33 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
akurtako: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Andrew Overholt 2009-08-19 19:46:19 UTC
Spec URL: http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/plexus-classworlds.spec
SRPM URL: http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/plexus-classworlds-1.2-0.a9.6.fc11.src.rpm
Description: Classworlds is a framework for container developers
who require complex manipulation of Java's ClassLoaders.
Java's native ClassLoader mechanims and classes can cause
much headache and confusion for certain types of
application developers. Projects which involve dynamic
loading of components or otherwise represent a 'container'
can benefit from the classloading control provided by
classworlds.

Comment 1 Andrew Overholt 2009-08-19 19:46:49 UTC
Note that this is a full review request.  The "pre-review" request (which has already been granted and the package imported into CVS) is bug #500246.

Comment 3 Alexander Kurtakov 2009-08-20 14:58:14 UTC
Formal review:
OK: rpmlint gives only no-conffile-in-etc for the maven pom.
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: LICENSE.txt included as %doc. 
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: Instructions for retrieving sources aded.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. 
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly.
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. [17]
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. Javadoc subpackage. 
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. 
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. PK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

The package is approved.

Comment 4 Andrew Overholt 2009-08-20 15:23:33 UTC
Built in rawhide:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1617781


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