Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-repository/1.0.5-1/jbosgi-repository.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-repository/1.0.5-1/jbosgi-repository-1.0.5-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: This package contains the JBoss OSGi Repository Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Note for reviewer: there is a newer version available, but it's a major upgrade to what AS7 expects. Will be updated once AS7 move to newer version.
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 %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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 [!]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. There are some .class files in src/test/resources. Please remove them. There is also a .dll file, I am not sure if that is allowed considering binaries are not allowed in sources. [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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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 Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if 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. [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. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [-]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Package has no sources or they are generated by developer [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. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [!]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. This can be ignored. Since the package was tested with some dependencies installed from scratch builds. [x]: 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. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. The review request describes why it is not possible to use the latest version. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0: jbosgi-repository-%{namedversion}.tar.xz (jbosgi- repository-%{namedversion}.tar.xz) Patch0: 0001-Drop-osgi.enterprise- dependency.patch (0001-Drop-osgi.enterprise-dependency.patch) Patch1: 0002-Disable-itests-module.patch (0002-Disable-itests-module.patch) The explanation was provided in a similar review request at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830750#c5 [-]: 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. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [!]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. There are some .class files in src/test/resources. Please remove them. There is also a .dll file, I am not sure if that is allowed considering binaries are not allowed in sources. [?]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. With Mikolaj Izdebski's help, I obtained the following as the dependencies, http://pastebin.com/raw.php?i=kdRLfESS Could you please cross-check once.
Apologies for the double post.
I fixed the typing issues and removed the binaries. For the deps list - I took only what's listed in pom files for this project, nothing more (no transitive deps) were added. Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-repository/1.0.5-2/jbosgi-repository.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-repository/1.0.5-2/jbosgi-repository-1.0.5-2.fc17.src.rpm
Thanks! Package Approved.
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jbosgi-repository Short Description: JBossOSGi Repository Owners: goldmann Branches: f17
Git done (by process-git-requests).
jbosgi-repository-1.0.5-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbosgi-repository-1.0.5-2.fc17
jbosgi-repository-1.0.5-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
jbosgi-repository-1.0.5-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.