Bug 614836 - Review Request: maven-checkstyle-plugin - Maven Checkstyle Plugin
Review Request: maven-checkstyle-plugin - Maven Checkstyle Plugin
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Stanislav Ochotnicky
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-07-15 07:23 EDT by Spike
Modified: 2010-07-16 18:13 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-07-16 18:13:15 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
sochotni: fedora‑review+
kevin: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Spike 2010-07-15 07:23:55 EDT
Spec URL: http://spike.fedorapeople.org/maven-checkstyle-plugin/maven-checkstyle-plugin.spec
SRPM URL: http://spike.fedorapeople.org/maven-checkstyle-plugin/maven-checkstyle-plugin-2.5-1.fc14.src.rpm
Description: Generates a report on violations of code style and optionally fails the build if violations are detected.

koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2321588
Comment 1 Spike 2010-07-15 08:15:56 EDT
Messed up the requires. Spec file and SRPM updated. New koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2321681
Comment 2 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-15 09:39:27 EDT
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.

maven-checkstyle-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven-checkstyle-plugin
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

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. 
NEEDSWORK: 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.

Your BRs are basically good, but it's better to be specific in these
cases (just like you specified maven2 >= 2.2.1):

checkstyle >= 5.1-1
objectweb-asm > 3.2-1

Without these the build can fail (it did on my F-13 mixed with rawhide packages :-) ). After I updated those two everything went fine.

OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
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 skipping tests. If they compile fine (and to me it seems
 they do, it's usually better to just
 -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true. This way tests are run, you can see
 the output and build doesn't fail when tests fail.
 * Might be a good idea and try those tests with upstream maven. They
 usually succeed, but if they fail with upstream -> file bugs
 * IMPORTANT:
   You are missing provides/obsoletes for
   maven2-plugin-checkstyle. See other maven-X-plugin packages spec files.
Comment 3 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-15 09:41:13 EDT
Oh, and I believe most maven-X-plugins use Development/Libraries as a group. This is not really a tool...
Comment 4 Spike 2010-07-15 12:37:34 EDT
(In reply to comment #2)
> Other notes:
>  * You are skipping tests. If they compile fine (and to me it seems
>  they do, it's usually better to just
>  -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true. This way tests are run, you can see
>  the output and build doesn't fail when tests fail.

Fixed

>  * Might be a good idea and try those tests with upstream maven. They
>  usually succeed, but if they fail with upstream -> file bugs

Tests run fine with upstream maven

>  * IMPORTANT:
>    You are missing provides/obsoletes for
>    maven2-plugin-checkstyle. See other maven-X-plugin packages spec files.    

Even if it's a new plugin? Should I do it for rmic-maven-plugin, too?
Comment 5 Spike 2010-07-15 12:50:22 EDT
(In reply to comment #2)
> Your BRs are basically good, but it's better to be specific in these
> cases (just like you specified maven2 >= 2.2.1):
> 
> checkstyle >= 5.1-1
> objectweb-asm > 3.2-1
> 
> Without these the build can fail (it did on my F-13 mixed with rawhide packages
> :-) ). After I updated those two everything went fine.

Fixed

(In reply to comment #3)
> Oh, and I believe most maven-X-plugins use Development/Libraries as a group.
> This is not really a tool...    

Fixed
Comment 6 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-16 02:41:19 EDT
(In reply to comment #4)
> >  * IMPORTANT:
> >    You are missing provides/obsoletes for
> >    maven2-plugin-checkstyle. See other maven-X-plugin packages spec files.    
> 
> Even if it's a new plugin? Should I do it for rmic-maven-plugin, too?    

$ yum search checkstyle | grep maven
maven2-plugin-checkstyle.noarch : Checkstyle plugin for maven

This is not really a new plugin...This used to be part of maven2 package. Now it's getting separated. But you still need to provide/obsolete old one.
Comment 7 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-16 02:45:21 EDT
As for the rmic...I believe there was no such plugin before so you have nothing to obsolete :-)
Comment 8 Spike 2010-07-16 03:24:48 EDT
(In reply to comment #2)
>  * IMPORTANT:
>    You are missing provides/obsoletes for
>    maven2-plugin-checkstyle. See other maven-X-plugin packages spec files.    

Fixed
Comment 9 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-16 03:52:18 EDT
Few things:
 * noarch in javadoc subpackage is not needed because main package is noarch
 * when you do reviews, you should raise release number after every change (as if you were doing during normal maintenance). This makes it easier for reviewers to actually see changes you made.


That is just for the future though. Package is APPROVED.
Comment 10 Spike 2010-07-16 04:12:21 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: maven-checkstyle-plugin
Short Description: Maven Checkstyle Plugin
Owners: spike
Branches: 
InitialCC:
Comment 11 Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-16 13:43:53 EDT
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

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