Bug 616354 - Review Request: geronimo-jpa - Java persistence API implementation
Summary: Review Request: geronimo-jpa - Java persistence API implementation
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Spike
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2010-07-20 08:55 UTC by Stanislav Ochotnicky
Modified: 2010-07-27 07:30 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-07-27 07:30:41 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
SpikeFedora: fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-20 08:55:45 UTC
Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/geronimo-jpa.spec
SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/geronimo-jpa-1.1.1-1.fc13.src.rpm

Description: 
The Java Persistence API is a new programming model under EJB 3.0
specification (JSR220) for the management of persistence and
object/relational mapping with Java EE and Java SE. Geronimo JPA is
one implementation of this specification.

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2330462

Comment 1 Spike 2010-07-20 14:43:41 UTC
I'll do this one

Comment 2 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-22 11:43:59 UTC
Small changes to provides/symlinks:
Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/geronimo-jpa.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/geronimo-jpa-1.1.1-2.fc13.src.rpm

Comment 3 Spike 2010-07-25 06:43:01 UTC
NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review.

geronimo-jpa.spec:24: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 24, tab: line 4)
-> NEEDSWORK
geronimo-jpa.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: geronimo-jpa_3.0_spec-1.1.1.tar.xz
-> Upstream doesn't do source releases.

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.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
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: 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.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Notes:
* You require an explicit jpackage version in the javadoc subpackage, but an unversioned in %post and %postun. Wanted behaviour?
* You just re-use the summary as javadoc description. Wouldn't it be nicer to say something like "This package contains the API documentation for..."

Comment 4 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-26 08:53:56 UTC
(In reply to comment #3)
> NEEDSWORK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in
> the review.
> 
> geronimo-jpa.spec:24: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 24, tab:
> line 4)
> -> NEEDSWORK

Fixed

> Notes:
> * You require an explicit jpackage version in the javadoc subpackage, but an
> unversioned in %post and %postun. Wanted behaviour?

Unwanted, fixed.

> * You just re-use the summary as javadoc description. Wouldn't it be nicer to
> say something like "This package contains the API documentation for..."    

Yes but my summary is: "API documentation for %{name}". It's short enough for summary and descriptive enough for description IMO. I could change this if you feel strong enough about it :-)

Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/geronimo-jpa.spec
SRPM URL:
http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/geronimo-jpa-1.1.1-3.fc13.src.rpm

Comment 5 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-26 09:00:56 UTC
Sorry the srpm URL is 
http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/geronimo-jpa-1.1.1-3.fc14.src.rpm

Comment 6 Spike 2010-07-26 09:28:00 UTC
(In reply to comment #4)
> Yes but my summary is: "API documentation for %{name}". It's short enough for
> summary and descriptive enough for description IMO. I could change this if you
> feel strong enough about it :-)

Never mind. Package is APPROVED.

Comment 7 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-26 10:32:55 UTC
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: geronimo-jpa
Short Description: Geronimo Java persistence API 
Owners: sochotni
Branches:

Comment 8 Kevin Fenzi 2010-07-26 22:34:42 UTC
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).

Comment 9 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-07-27 07:30:41 UTC
Thanks, closing.

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2353487


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