Spec URL: <http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-common-artifact-filters.spec> SRPM URL: <http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-common-artifact-filters-1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm> Description: <A collection of ready-made filters to control inclusion/exclusion of artifacts during dependency resolution.>
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-common-artifact-filters.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-common-artifact-filters-1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm This way it will work for fedora-review, I hope! :)
I'll do the review, sorry it took me so look to get to it
Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST 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. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [!]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. javadoc subpackage should include LICENSE as well [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. junit4 has been obsoleted a simple junit would do, but even then. junit in pom file is specified only as a "test" dependency. Is it really required during runtime? [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint maven-common-artifact-filters-javadoc-1.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint maven-common-artifact-filters-1.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. rpmlint maven-common-artifact-filters-1.4-1.fc18.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/w0rm/work/reviews/maven-common-artifact-filters/788583/maven-common-artifact-filters-1.4-source-release.zip : MD5SUM this package : f94fa84d1fac279f0975a103389e95ed MD5SUM upstream package : f94fa84d1fac279f0975a103389e95ed [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. I believe the patch was done to make package compile with maven 3.x. It would be nice to state so in the comment near it [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. ==== Java ==== [-]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ==== Maven ==== [x]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms Issues: - Provides/Obsoletes - must be fully versioned (i.e. NVR) - License must be included in javadoc - Patch could use a comment, and I don't fully understand modifications to versions (since we ignore them). Version changes would make sense if you were trying to upstream your patch I guess. Up to you in any case. Generated by fedora-review 0.1.2 External plugins: /usr/share/fedora-review/plugins/ext2.pl version: 1.0
fixed ? Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-common-artifact-filters.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/maven-common-artifact-filters-1.4-1.fc16.src.rpm
Package is good now, but please for future when the package is being reviewed raise release number and add changelog entry just as you would during normal bugfixing. It makes it easier to find out what changed between versions. APPROVED
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: maven-common-artifact-filters Short Description: Maven Common Artifact Filters Owners: gil Branches: f16,f17 InitialCC: java-sig
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: maven-common-artifact-filters Short Description: Maven Common Artifact Filters Owners: gil Branches: f16 f17 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests). Stanislav, please take ownership of review BZs. Thanks!
Damn, I hate that I have to set "assigned" in two places. Anyway..will try to keep it in mind