Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-test-policy.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-test-policy-1.2-1.fc15.src.rpm Description: Jetty test policy files
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [X] Rpmlint output: rpmlint -i jetty-test-policy.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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. [ ] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [!] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. Build fails with the following: [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin:2.10:test (default-test) on project jetty-test-policy: Unable to generate classpath: org.apache.maven.artifact.resolver.MultipleArtifactsNotFoundException: Missing: [ERROR] ---------- [ERROR] 1) org.apache.maven.surefire:surefire-junit3:jar:2.10 [ERROR] [ERROR] Try downloading the file manually from the project website. [ERROR] [ERROR] Then, install it using the command: [ERROR] mvn install:install-file -DgroupId=org.apache.maven.surefire -DartifactId=surefire-junit3 -Dversion=2.10 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file [ERROR] [ERROR] Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can deploy the file there: [ERROR] mvn deploy:deploy-file -DgroupId=org.apache.maven.surefire -DartifactId=surefire-junit3 -Dversion=2.10 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id] [ERROR] [ERROR] Path to dependency: [ERROR] 1) dummy:dummy:jar:1.0 [ERROR] 2) org.apache.maven.surefire:surefire-junit3:jar:2.10 [ERROR] [ERROR] 2) org.apache.maven.surefire:common-junit3:jar:2.10 [ERROR] [ERROR] Try downloading the file manually from the project website. [ERROR] [ERROR] Then, install it using the command: [ERROR] mvn install:install-file -DgroupId=org.apache.maven.surefire -DartifactId=common-junit3 -Dversion=2.10 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file [ERROR] [ERROR] Alternatively, if you host your own repository you can deploy the file there: [ERROR] mvn deploy:deploy-file -DgroupId=org.apache.maven.surefire -DartifactId=common-junit3 -Dversion=2.10 -Dpackaging=jar -Dfile=/path/to/file -Durl=[url] -DrepositoryId=[id] [ERROR] [ERROR] Path to dependency: [ERROR] 1) dummy:dummy:jar:1.0 [ERROR] 2) org.apache.maven.surefire:surefire-junit3:jar:2.10 [ERROR] 3) org.apache.maven.surefire:common-junit3:jar:2.10 [ERROR] [ERROR] ---------- [ERROR] 2 required artifacts are missing. [ERROR] [ERROR] for artifact: [ERROR] dummy:dummy:jar:1.0 [ERROR] [ERROR] from the specified remote repositories: [ERROR] central (http://repo1.maven.org/maven2, releases=true, snapshots=false) [ERROR] -> [Help 1] [ERROR] [ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the -e switch. [ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging. [ERROR] [ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions, please read the following articles: [ERROR] [Help 1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/MojoExecutionException [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]. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. There is no license specified in any source file. 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 [-] 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. MD5SUM this package :e36c2a4c3d4daa923755214e343dd7f9 MD5SUM upstream package:e36c2a4c3d4daa923755214e343dd7f9 [?] 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. [X] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [X] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [X] 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. [X] 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 === [X] 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. [!] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: === Issues === 1. Cannot build either on mock or scratch build in rawhide. === Final Notes === 1.
Another forgotten BR thanks to mock reuse Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-test-policy.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/packages/jetty-test-policy-1.2-2.fc15.src.rpm Koji scratchbuild: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3493716
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [X] Rpmlint output: rpmlint -i jetty-test-policy.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. bash $ rpmlint jetty-test-policy-1.2-2.fc17.noarch.rpm jetty-test-policy.noarch: W: no-documentation ****** ok ****** 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. bash $ rpmlint jetty-test-policy-1.2-2.fc17.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. bash $ rpmlint jetty-test-policy-javadoc-1.2-2.fc17.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 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 [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. There is no license specified in any source file. It took me a while to verify that Jetty 7 is licensed as specified. 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 [-] 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. MD5SUM this package :e36c2a4c3d4daa923755214e343dd7f9 MD5SUM upstream package:e36c2a4c3d4daa923755214e343dd7f9 [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. [X] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [X] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [X] 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. [X] 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 === [X] 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. [X] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: Nov 07/2011 === Issues === 1. None === Final Notes === 1. Review complete.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jetty-test-policy Short Description: Jetty test policy files Owners: sochotni Branches: InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Package built. Thanks a bunch for review and repo guys! http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3496992