Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dbunit.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dbunit-2.4.8-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: DbUnit is a JUnit extension (also usable with Ant) targeted for database-driven projects that, among other things, puts your database into a known state between test runs. This is an excellent way to avoid the myriad of problems that can occur when one test case corrupts the database and causes subsequent tests to fail or exacerbate the damage. DbUnit has the ability to export and import your database data to and from XML datasets. Since version 2.0, DbUnit can works with very large dataset when use in streaming mode. DbUnit can also helps you to verify that your database data match expected set of values.
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dbunit.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dbunit-2.4.9-1.fc18.src.rpm - Update to 2.4.9 Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5405694
Update to 2.5.1 and I'll review this.
(In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #2) > Update to 2.5.1 and I'll review this. I prefer use a stable release instead of a "SNAPSHOT" Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dbunit.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dbunit-2.5.0-1.fc19.src.rpm - Update to 2.5.0 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7234351
May I suggest you to use %global enable_tests 0? This would make this consistent with other packages and easier to read. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Spec file as given by url differs from SRPM's one. - Incorrect FSF address found in license file and headers in source code. Upstream should be informed about this. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 56 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/821284-dbunit/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-metadata [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dbunit- javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [-]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: dbunit-2.5.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm dbunit-javadoc-2.5.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm dbunit-2.5.0-1.fc22.src.rpm dbunit.src: W: invalid-url Source0: dbunit-2.5.0.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint dbunit dbunit-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/makerpm/821284-dbunit/srpm/dbunit.spec 2014-08-03 12:08:56.453011988 -0600 +++ /home/makerpm/821284-dbunit/srpm-unpacked/dbunit.spec 2014-08-02 11:52:19.000000000 -0600 @@ -122,4 +122,5 @@ #%%pom_xpath_set "pom:dependencies/pom:dependency[pom:artifactId ='dbunit']/pom:version" %%{version} %%{name}-maven-plugin + %build Requires -------- dbunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(dbunit) java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(commons-collections:commons-collections) mvn(junit:junit) mvn(org.apache.ant:ant) mvn(org.apache.poi:poi) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) dbunit-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- dbunit: config(dbunit) dbunit mvn(org.dbunit:dbunit) mvn(org.dbunit:dbunit:pom:) dbunit-javadoc: dbunit-javadoc
(In reply to Eduardo Mayorga from comment #4) > Issues: > ======= > - Spec file as given by url differs from SRPM's one. should fixed > - Incorrect FSF address found in license file and headers in source code. > Upstream should be informed about this. Open https://sourceforge.net/p/dbunit/bugs/357/ Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dbunit.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dbunit-2.5.0-2.fc19.src.rpm - fix some review issues
PACKAGE APPROVED.
Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: dbunit Short Description: A JUnit extension targeted for database-driven projects Owners: gil InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Task Info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7243519 Build Info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=550621