Hide Forgot
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/codehause-parent.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/codehaus-parent-3-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: This package contains the codehause-parent pom.
Sorry: Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/codehause-parent.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/codehaus-parent-3-1.fc15.src.rpm
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/codehaus-parent.spec
I am taking this
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: codehaus-parent.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C codehaus-parent pom codehaus-parent.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C codehaus-parent This should probably be "Parent pom file for codehaus project" codehaus-parent.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codehause -> codename, Wodehouse, Oberhausen codehaus-parent.src: W: invalid-license Unknown This can't stay like this. I've packaged few codehaus projects that were missing licensing information and upstream was quite quick in releasing new version with license header included. Please get in touch with them codehaus-parent.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C codehaus-parent pom codehaus-parent.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C codehaus-parent codehaus-parent.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codehause -> codename, Wodehouse, Oberhausen codehaus-parent.noarch: W: invalid-license Unknown codehaus-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation codehaus-parent.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/codehaus-parent 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [x] Buildroot definition is not present [!] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: Unknown Mentioned in rpmlint output, these need to be fixed. [-] 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 is included in %doc. [-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [-] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 3fb466284d96486048d564c1725e9f84 MD5SUM upstream package: 3fb466284d96486048d564c1725e9f84 [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [-] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [-] Package uses %global not %define [-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly) === Maven === [x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms [-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment [-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven2.jpp.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment [x] Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x] Packages have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils (for %update_maven_depmap macro) === Other suggestions === [-] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [-] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 === Issues === 1. License must be figured out 2. Summary should be improved 3. No need to "cp %SOURCE0 pom.xml" and whole build section can be removed (nevermind rpmlint warning/error). 4. defattr macro should be removed (not needed anymore), see recent changes in packaging guidelines [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 [6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames
Filed issue upstream for license: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/HAUS-2084.
Upstream has now noted the ASL 2.0 license in development version of the pom. I think we'll stick with this version for now though. * Wed May 4 2011 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 3-2 - Drop build and defattr - Better summary/description - Upstream set license to ASL 2.0 http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/codehaus-parent.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/codehaus-parent-3-2.fc14.src.rpm
Great, you're good to go. APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: codehaus-parent Short Description: Parent pom file for codehaus project Owners: orion Branches: f15 f14 el6 el5 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Checked in and built. Thanks all.