Bug 750757 - Review Request: jetty-parent - Jetty parent POM file
Summary: Review Request: jetty-parent - Jetty parent POM file
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
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: 750759
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2011-11-02 10:14 UTC by Stanislav Ochotnicky
Modified: 2011-11-03 12:42 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2011-11-03 12:42:33 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
akurtako: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-11-02 10:14:11 UTC
Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-parent.spec
SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-parent-19-1.fc15.src.rpm

Description: Jetty parent POM file for use in other jetty subprojects

Comment 1 Alexander Kurtakov 2011-11-02 14:44:21 UTC
I'll do this one.

Comment 2 Alexander Kurtakov 2011-11-02 21:34:15 UTC
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x]  Rpmlint output:
jetty-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation
Fine, this is pom only package
[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
[x]  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].
[x]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: ASL 2.0 or EPL
[-]  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
[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
[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 or must require other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason
[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.
[-]  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_maven_depmap

=== 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 "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment
[x]  Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]  Packages DOES NOT 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)
[x]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.


=== Issues ===
1. Not a blocker but I always prefer to see mvn install in the build section, this way we are sure that we do not install pom files with dependencies on things we miss in Fedora.

APPROVED

Comment 3 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-11-03 10:23:29 UTC
Normally I'd do it but since there are no dependencies to be resolved in pom (it only has dependencyManagement section) I didn't think it would be necessary.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jetty-parent
Short Description: Jetty parent POM file
Owners: sochotni
Branches: f16
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2011-11-03 12:29:31 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2011-11-03 12:42:33 UTC
Package built, thanks for review and git:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3482451


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