Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/jsafrane/review/plantuml/plantuml.spec SRPM URL: http://people.redhat.com/jsafrane/review/plantuml/plantuml-7943-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: PlantUML is a program allowing to draw UML diagrams, using a simple and human readable text description. It is extremely useful for code documenting, sketching project architecture during team conversations and so on. Fedora Account System Username: jsafrane
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines >>>> Issues are described below: [!]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage >>>> Please, instead of installing the JAR file with javadoc, use files >>>> contained in target/site/apidocs/* , like this (line 64): >>>> cp -rp target/site/apidocs/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name} [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. >>>> The package contains classes from the package >>>> org.stathissideris.ascii2image. This package seems to have been written by >>>> Sathis Sideris for the ditaa project unrelated to this package, therefore >>>> I conclude it's a bundled library, albeit it's provided by upstream. The >>>> preferred course of action is to package ditaa first and require it in >>>> this package. [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). >>>> On line 61, you are mentioning the jar by explicit version number. That >>>> is not good for updating, please use plantuml-%{version}-SNAPSHOT.jar . Notes: ====== [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. >>>> Using the 'install' target is unnecessary. If you have integration tests, >>>> use 'mvn-rpmbuild verify', and if not, use 'mvn-rpmbuild package' [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. >>>> Please, query upstream to include the licence file. [!]: Latest version is packaged. >>>> With the frequency that the upstream releases a new version (< 1 week), >>>> I am not going to block the review on this requirement. However, please >>>> make sure that this package is updated as quickly as possible. [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) >>>> I was not able to determine which buildsystem the upstream uses. Since >>>> there are JARs in the upsteram repository that contain only the ant >>>> buildfile, I assume the upstream is inclined towards ant, but I have >>>> nothing written in stone. ===== 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package javadoc [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like) GPL (v3 or later)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tradej/reviews/884706-plantuml/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [!]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc html files found in plantuml- javadoc-7943-1.fc19.noarch.rpm [x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [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) [!]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Java: [x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: plantuml-javadoc-7943-1.fc19.noarch.rpm plantuml-7943-1.fc19.src.rpm plantuml-7943-1.fc19.noarch.rpm plantuml-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados plantuml.noarch: W: no-documentation plantuml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plantuml 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint plantuml plantuml-javadoc plantuml.noarch: W: no-documentation plantuml.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary plantuml plantuml-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- plantuml-javadoc-7943-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils plantuml-7943-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh java jpackage-utils Provides -------- plantuml-javadoc-7943-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: plantuml-javadoc = 7943-1.fc19 plantuml-7943-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: mvn(net.sourceforge.plantuml:plantuml) = 7943-SNAPSHOT plantuml = 7943-1.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/plantuml/plantuml-7943.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3f7cd7035a1f82f1e67ccf234cbe8ecec759022912212bb677d38b883c2f3c17 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3f7cd7035a1f82f1e67ccf234cbe8ecec759022912212bb677d38b883c2f3c17 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 884706 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 *** NOT APPROVED *** Issues are described at the top of this post. Please, also try to fix things mentioned in Notes, although that is not vital for the review to be approved.
Thanks for the review! (In reply to comment #1) > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries. > >>>> The package contains classes from the package > >>>> org.stathissideris.ascii2image. This package seems to have been written by > >>>> Sathis Sideris for the ditaa project unrelated to this package, therefore > >>>> I conclude it's a bundled library, albeit it's provided by upstream. The > >>>> preferred course of action is to package ditaa first and require it in > >>>> this package. Fortunately, upstream provides plantuml-lgpl, which contains the sources without any bundled libraries. The resulting application then lacks some features (e.g. output in ditaa format), but I don't miss anything important. Therefore I updated the .spec file to use the -lgpl tarball, which results in lot of changes, e.g. ant is used instead of maven. > > [!]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc > subpackage > >>>> Please, instead of installing the JAR file with javadoc, use files > >>>> contained in target/site/apidocs/* , like this (line 64): > >>>> cp -rp target/site/apidocs/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name} I hope I fixed it, ant did not generate any javadoc so I added javadoc call to the spec file. > [!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory > names). > >>>> On line 61, you are mentioning the jar by explicit version number. That > >>>> is not good for updating, please use plantuml-%{version}-SNAPSHOT.jar . Nice catch, but obsolete with new -lgpl tarball > > Notes: > ====== > > [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. > >>>> Using the 'install' target is unnecessary. If you have integration tests, > >>>> use 'mvn-rpmbuild verify', and if not, use 'mvn-rpmbuild package' Maven is gone. > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > >>>> Please, query upstream to include the licence file. Done > [!]: Latest version is packaged. > >>>> With the frequency that the upstream releases a new version (< 1 week), > >>>> I am not going to block the review on this requirement. However, please > >>>> make sure that this package is updated as quickly as possible. Done > > [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) > >>>> I was not able to determine which buildsystem the upstream uses. Since > >>>> there are JARs in the upsteram repository that contain only the ant > >>>> buildfile, I assume the upstream is inclined towards ant, but I have > >>>> nothing written in stone. Done Updated sources: http://people.redhat.com/jsafrane/review/plantuml2/plantuml.spec http://people.redhat.com/jsafrane/review/plantuml2/plantuml-7950-2.fc18.src.rpm
Looks good now. Only the release number is wrong (is 2, should be 1), but I'm trusting you with fixing this before you upload to the repo. *** APPROVED ***
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: plantuml Short Description: Program to generate UML diagram from a text description Owners: jsafrane Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
plantuml-7951-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/plantuml-7951-1.fc18
plantuml-7951-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/plantuml-7951-1.fc17
plantuml-7951-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
plantuml-7951-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
plantuml-7951-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.