Name : netty31 Version : 3.1.5 License : ASL 2.0 URL : http://www.jboss.org/netty Summary : An asynchronous event-driven network application framework and tools for Java Description : Netty is a NIO client server framework which enables quick and easy development of network applications such as protocol servers and clients. It greatly simplifies and streamlines network programming such as TCP and UDP socket server. 'Quick and easy' doesn't mean that a resulting application will suffer from a maintainability or a performance issue. Netty has been designed carefully with the experiences earned from the implementation of a lot of protocols such as FTP, SMTP, HTTP, and various binary and text-based legacy protocols. As a result, Netty has succeeded to find a way to achieve ease of development, performance, stability, and flexibility without a compromise. SPEC: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/SPECS/netty31.spec SRPM: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-17/sources/netty31-3.1.5-1.fc17.src.rpm NOTE: netty 3.2 already exists in Fedora. This is a compatibility version required for Eucalyptus. We've investigated upgrading our dependency, but doing so requires significant refactoring, as netty 3.2 broke compatibility with previous releases.
Hi Andy, Here's my package review. I found a couple minor issues, but nothing too bad. Go ahead and make the changes listed under "Issues" and that should be good! Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: netty31.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Netty -> Petty, Getty, Betty netty31.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/netty HTTP Error 403: Forbidden netty31.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Netty -> Petty, Getty, Betty netty31.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/netty HTTP Error 403: Forbidden netty31-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/netty HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 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. License type: ASL 2.0 [x] 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] 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. MD5SUM this package : 20a38720a01d1a60613f657362c162e5 MD5SUM upstream package: 20a38720a01d1a60613f657362c162e5 [!] 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 sub package [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 [x] 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, ...) [x] 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 [x] 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) [!] Latest version is packaged. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: Fedora 17 and Rawhide on x86_64 === Issues === 1. Java Guidelines state that java-devel MUST be included as a BuildRequires, but it is not present. Build is still passing since it is being pulled in by another package. 2. Rpmlint warnings appear to be false positives. The URL actually does exist, though the project has relocated to a new website. You should probably update the URL and Source URL to point to the current locations. === Notes === 1. Latest version is not being packaged, but that is okay since this is meant to be a compatibility package. Nothing to do here. https://netty.io/ https://github.com/downloads/netty/netty/netty-3.1.5.GA-dist.tar.bz2 [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
Thanks for the review. updated files posted here: http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-18/netty31/3.1.5-2/netty31-3.1.5-2.fc18.src.rpm http://downloads.eucalyptus.com/devel/packages/fedora-18/netty31/3.1.5-2/netty31.spec
Ok, changes look good to me. Approved!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: netty31 Short Description: An asynchronous event-driven network application framework and tools for Java Owners: arg Branches: f17 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=337228 Closing.