Bug 916023 - Review Request: zanata-parent - The Project Object Model(pom) files for the Zanata packages
Summary: Review Request: zanata-parent - The Project Object Model(pom) files for the Z...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Ding-Yi Chen
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-02-27 03:21 UTC by Patrick Huang
Modified: 2015-01-28 11:45 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-03-22 00:41:01 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
dchen: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Patrick Huang 2013-02-27 03:21:43 UTC
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pahuang/zanata-parent.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pahuang/zanata-parent-10-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: 
This is the parent pom for all Zanata modules.

Fedora Account System Username: pahuang

Comment 2 Ding-Yi Chen 2013-03-05 08:10:39 UTC
Output of fedora-review that's relevant:

Summary:
 * Please follow http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html to download GPL ang LGPL documents and put it as upstream zip file.

==========================================================
Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames


===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
Please follow http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html to download GPL ang LGPL documents and put it as upstream zip file.

[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[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 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]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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.
     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.
[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]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[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]: 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
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %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: No rpmlint messages.
[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: zanata-parent-10-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
          zanata-parent-10-1.fc17.src.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint zanata-parent
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
zanata-parent-10-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    java
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
zanata-parent-10-1.fc17.noarch.rpm:
    
    mvn(org.zanata:zanata-parent) = 10
    zanata-parent = 10-1.fc17



MD5-sum check
-------------
https://github.com/zanata/zanata-parent/archive/zanata-parent-10.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d335811f7606dd7d50ce4b94451950cadd6b700a44d5b1fba86ded9274566a92
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d335811f7606dd7d50ce4b94451950cadd6b700a44d5b1fba86ded9274566a92


Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 916023

Comment 3 Patrick Huang 2013-03-06 00:20:32 UTC
added licenses files and updated spec and srpm.
spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pahuang/zanata-parent.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~pahuang/zanata-parent-10-2.fc17.src.rpm

Comment 4 Ding-Yi Chen 2013-03-06 01:03:32 UTC
One of the SHOULD items:

[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.

That means, COPYING and COPYING.LESSER should be included in upstream source ZIP files, not as SOURCE1 and SOUORCE2.

Comment 6 Ding-Yi Chen 2013-03-07 04:23:26 UTC
Package Review
==============

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
[X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames


===== 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]: 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.
[-]: 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]: 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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.
     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: No rpmlint messages.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 3 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 subpackage present
[-]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[-]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
     Note: No javadoc subpackage present
[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
[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)
[X]: 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.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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: zanata-parent-11-1.fc17.src.rpm
          zanata-parent-11-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint zanata-parent
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
zanata-parent-11-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    
    java
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
zanata-parent-11-1.fc17.noarch.rpm:
    
    mvn(org.zanata:zanata-parent) = 11
    zanata-parent = 11-1.fc17



MD5-sum check
-------------
https://github.com/zanata/zanata-parent/archive/zanata-parent-11.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d1ef57494e34a53cb692132e8ecc68ee06693e0317c75c2069eb2cff94678b58
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d1ef57494e34a53cb692132e8ecc68ee06693e0317c75c2069eb2cff94678b58


Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 916023


APPROVED

Comment 7 Patrick Huang 2013-03-07 04:30:35 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: zanata-parent
Short Description: The Project Object Model(pom) files for the Zanata packages
Owners: pahuang seanf
Branches: f17 f18
InitialCC:

Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-03-07 13:17:27 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2013-03-08 00:46:59 UTC
zanata-parent-11-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanata-parent-11-1.fc18

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2013-03-08 00:47:10 UTC
zanata-parent-11-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanata-parent-11-1.fc17

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2013-03-08 23:53:19 UTC
zanata-parent-11-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2013-03-12 01:53:57 UTC
zanata-parent-11-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanata-parent-11-2.fc18

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2013-03-12 01:54:08 UTC
zanata-parent-11-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/zanata-parent-11-2.fc17

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2013-03-22 00:41:04 UTC
zanata-parent-11-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2013-03-22 00:49:46 UTC
zanata-parent-11-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 16 Ding-Yi Chen 2015-01-28 06:37:10 UTC
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: zanata-parent
New Branches: epel7
Owners: pahuang dchen

Comment 17 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-01-28 11:45:23 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).


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