Bug 894269 - Review Request: maven-downloader - Maven artifact downloader
Summary: Review Request: maven-downloader - Maven artifact downloader
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mikolaj Izdebski
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 850077
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-01-11 09:27 UTC by Tomas 'Sheldon' Radej
Modified: 2013-03-13 09:07 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-03-13 09:07:48 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
mizdebsk: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Tomas 'Sheldon' Radej 2013-01-11 09:27:11 UTC
Spec URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-downloader/1/maven-downloader.spec
SRPM URL: http://tradej.fedorapeople.org/reviews/maven-downloader/1/maven-downloader-1.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: Provide a super simple interface for downloading a single artifact.

This is a replacement package for maven-shared-downloader

Fedora Account System Username: tradej

Comment 1 Mikolaj Izdebski 2013-01-11 13:14:18 UTC
I am taking this review.

I hereby acknowledge the fact that this is a re-review request for a package rename, and the old package name that this is replacing is maven-shared-downloader. I also acknowledge that I have checked for proper Provides and Obsoletes.

Comment 2 Mikolaj Izdebski 2013-01-11 13:21:23 UTC
Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable


===== 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: 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.
[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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[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.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[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
[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
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[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]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

Java:
[x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: maven-downloader-1.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
          maven-downloader-1.1-1.fc19.src.rpm
          maven-downloader-javadoc-1.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
maven-downloader.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-downloader-1.1.tar.xz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


No blocker issues found.

**************
** APPROVED **
**************

Comment 3 Tomas 'Sheldon' Radej 2013-01-14 15:10:18 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: maven-downloader
Short Description: Maven artifact downloader
Owners: tradej mizdebsk
Branches: f18
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-01-14 15:12:56 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Mikolaj Izdebski 2013-03-13 09:07:48 UTC
Built for F19: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=382873
Closing.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.