Spec URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-docck-plugin/maven-docck-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-docck-plugin/maven-docck-plugin-1.0-0.1.beta2.src.rpm Description: This plugin checks that a project complies with the Plugin Documentation Standard.
Note about this package: Built with dist-f14-maven221 target in koji, here is the link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2219128
I will do the review
Before I start official review process I have few things: * use global instead of define macro * there is already version 1.0 (do `svn ls http://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/maven/plugins/tags/ | grep docck` and you'll see) * check http://maven.apache.org/plugins/maven-docck-plugin/dependencies.html for docck plugin dependencies. You are missing at least a few (commons-logging, commons-httpclient comes to mind). Or perhaps this and other dependencies are optional? Either way, this needs to be either fixed or explained * version in changelog is incomplete?
Two more things that I noticed: * typo in changelog "Inital" * when adding depmap to maven, last argument could be %{name} because you are installing jar file using name macro anyway...
Aaand one more thing: * I believe your spec file is missing proper provides/obsoletes for old maven2-plugin-docck
I built this package with version 1.0, meanwhile, I fixed the issues you mentioned above, please review again, thanks. Spec URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-docck-plugin/maven-docck-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-docck-plugin/maven-docck-plugin-1.0-1.src.rpm scratch built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2221797
Corrected my name in changelog. Spec URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-docck-plugin/maven-docck-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-docck-plugin/maven-docck-plugin-1.0-1.src.rpm scratch built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2221842
NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. maven-docck-plugin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-docck-plugin-1.0.tar.gz maven-docck-plugin.noarch: W: self-obsoletion maven2-plugin-docck <= 0:2.0.8 obsoletes maven2-plugin-docck = 1.0-1.fc13 maven-docck-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation maven-docck-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven-docck-plugin 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Everything except self-obsoletion is false-positive. You need to fix that self-obsoletion (by adding epoch 1 to provides) though. OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. . 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: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. OK: The spec file must be written in American English. OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. 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. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. OK: Each package must consistently use macros. OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). 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. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Other notes: You are using gzip compression to create tarball from SVN. Using xz compression creates smaller archives (saving space on dist machines) and is fully supported. You can create xz archive by doing: tar acf maven-docck-plugin-1.0.tar.xz maven-docck-plugin-1.0/ (don't forget to change Source0 URL afterwards) Another (tiny) thing to be careful about for future is to try to be consistent in every way possible. For example you are using 0755 in one place and few lines down you use 755. Pick one style and stick with it. A small tip. It's also possible to install file and create all the directories in one step. For example: install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{_javadir} install -m 644 target/%{name}-%{version}.jar %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar could be rewritten as (with preserving file timestamps): install -Dpm 644 target/%{name}-%{version}.jar %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar So summarized: * self-obsoletes * compression * consistency At least first two points are necessary for approval, but I would suggest making spec file as consistent as possible while you are editing it.
(In reply to comment #8) > NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in > the review. > maven-docck-plugin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-docck-plugin-1.0.tar.gz > maven-docck-plugin.noarch: W: self-obsoletion maven2-plugin-docck <= 0:2.0.8 > obsoletes maven2-plugin-docck = 1.0-1.fc13 > maven-docck-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation > maven-docck-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/maven/fragments/maven-docck-plugin > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. > > Everything except self-obsoletion is false-positive. You need to fix > that self-obsoletion (by adding epoch 1 to provides) though. > > OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . > OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. . > 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: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in > its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the > package must be included in %doc. > OK: The spec file must be written in American English. > OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > OK: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an > architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in > bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on > that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the > corresponding ExcludeArch line. > OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that > are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of > those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. > OK: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a > directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that > directory. > 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. Executables should be set with > executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > OK: Each package must consistently use macros. > OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of > large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to > size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). > 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. > The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the > files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for > example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the > files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that > you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, > then please present that at package review time. > OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > > Other notes: > You are using gzip compression to create tarball from SVN. Using xz > compression creates smaller archives (saving space on dist machines) > and is fully supported. You can create xz archive by doing: > tar acf maven-docck-plugin-1.0.tar.xz maven-docck-plugin-1.0/ > (don't forget to change Source0 URL afterwards) > > Another (tiny) thing to be careful about for future is to try to be > consistent in every way possible. For example you are using 0755 in > one place and few lines down you use 755. Pick one style and stick > with it. > > A small tip. It's also possible to install file and create all the > directories in one step. For example: > > install -d -m 0755 %{buildroot}%{_javadir} > install -m 644 target/%{name}-%{version}.jar > %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar > > could be rewritten as (with preserving file timestamps): > > install -Dpm 644 target/%{name}-%{version}.jar > %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar > > > So summarized: > * self-obsoletes > * compression > * consistency > > At least first two points are necessary for approval, but I would > suggest making spec file as consistent as possible while you are > editing it. Fixed all. Please review again, thanks. Spec URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-docck-plugin/maven-docck-plugin.spec SRPM URL: http://huwang.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-docck-plugin/maven-docck-plugin-1.0-2.src.rpm scratch built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2226745
Package looks good. One small thing though. To really create tar.bz2 archive you have to use 'j' instead of 'z' when calling tar. So update the comment accordingly and re-create your srpm before importing to CVS. Package is APPROVED.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: maven-docck-plugin Short Description: Maven Documentation Checker Plugin Owners: huwang Branches: InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=177244
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: maven-docck-plugin New Branches: epel7 Owners: ellert InitialCC: java-sig
Any comments from the Fedora maintainer?
I asked the maintainers of this an a number of other packages on 2014-02-17 about their plans for EPEL 7. Of the maven-docck-plugin maintainers, the package owner (huwang) did not reply, while the co-maintainer (mizdebsk) said: "I don't have any plans for adding any of these packages to EPEL."