Bug 959674 - Review Request: jatl - Java Anti-Template Language
Summary: Review Request: jatl - Java Anti-Template Language
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Michal Srb
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2013-05-04 17:22 UTC by gil cattaneo
Modified: 2013-11-12 15:51 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: jatl-0.2.2-1.fc19
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-07-07 01:35:22 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
msrb: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description gil cattaneo 2013-05-04 17:22:27 UTC
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jatl.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jatl-0.2.2-1.fc18.src.rpm
Description: 
Is an extremely lightweight efficient Java library 
to generate XHTML or XML in a micro DSL builder/fluent style.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

This package is needed for Gradle.

Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5331060

Comment 1 Michal Srb 2013-06-28 06:51:23 UTC
Package Review
==============

Legend:
[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 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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]: 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.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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
[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.

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 should not 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 Maven mapping
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[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]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[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.
[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]: 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.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

Java:
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: jatl-0.2.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          jatl-javadoc-0.2.2-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint jatl jatl-javadoc
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
jatl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(commons-lang:commons-lang)

jatl-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
jatl:
    jatl
    mvn(com.googlecode.jatl:jatl)
    osgi(com.googlecode.jatl)

jatl-javadoc:
    jatl-javadoc



Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 959674

The package looks good, only few comments:
- I think that following line can be safely removed from spec file:
%pom_xpath_inject "pom:project/pom:build/pom:plugins/pom:plugin[pom:artifactId ='maven-compiler-plugin']" "<version>any</version>"

- Only following BR are actually needed (F19+):
BuildRequires:  maven-local
BuildRequires:  mvn(commons-lang:commons-lang)
BuildRequires:  mvn(junit:junit)
BuildRequires:  mvn(org.sonatype.oss:oss-parent)

There is no need to specify BR on packages like maven-surefire-provider-junit4 and many others. These will be pulled in by maven-local (applies for F19 and later).
- Please consider using XMvn, it has many advantages over classic style which you're currently using


Approved.

Comment 2 gil cattaneo 2013-06-28 07:36:31 UTC
hi
thanks for  the review
i dont want use %%mvn_install macro, install the library in /usr/share/java/jatl instead of /usr/share/java
isnt very friendly with gradle ...
regards

Comment 3 gil cattaneo 2013-06-28 07:38:08 UTC
%pom_xpath_inject "pom:project/pom:build/pom:plugins/pom:plugin[pom:artifactId ='maven-compiler-plugin']" "<version>any</version>"
remove this  warning
[WARNING] Some problems were encountered while building the effective model for com.googlecode.jatl:jatl:jar:0.2.2
[WARNING] 'build.plugins.plugin.version' for org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin is missing. @ line 177, column 21
[WARNING] 
[WARNING] It is highly recommended to fix these problems because they threaten the stability of your build.
[WARNING] 
[WARNING] For this reason, future Maven versions might no longer support building such malformed projects.
[WARNING]
thanks

Comment 4 gil cattaneo 2013-06-28 07:42:24 UTC
and again a thing, sorry, i dont understand what need /usr/share/maven-effective-poms/JPP.jatl-jatl.pom ... just documentation ? 
thanks

Comment 5 Michal Srb 2013-06-28 08:00:00 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2)
> hi
> thanks for  the review
> i dont want use %%mvn_install macro, install the library in
> /usr/share/java/jatl instead of /usr/share/java
> isnt very friendly with gradle ...
> regards

You can always create symlinks in /usr/share/java. All you need to do is add following line to your %prep section:

%mvn_file :jatl jatl/jatl jatl

%mvn_install will then install JAR file for artifact "any_groupId:jatl" to the location %{_javadir}/jatl/jatl.jar and it will also create symlink %{_javadir}/jatl.jar

Comment 6 gil cattaneo 2013-06-28 08:02:30 UTC
can i do this?

mv %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}/%{name}.jar %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
rm -r %{buildroot}%{_javadir}/%{name}
mkdir -p %{buildroot}%{_mavenpomdir}
mv %{buildroot}%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP.%{name}-%{name}.pom %{buildroot}%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP-%{name}.pom
%add_maven_depmap JPP-%{name}.pom %{name}.jar
thanks

Comment 7 Michal Srb 2013-06-28 08:19:58 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> and again a thing, sorry, i dont understand what need
> /usr/share/maven-effective-poms/JPP.jatl-jatl.pom ... just documentation ? 
> thanks

This file is later used by XMvn. It's important file and even if you decide not to use %mvn_install from some reason, you should install it manually.

Comment 8 gil cattaneo 2013-06-28 08:22:16 UTC
I apologize if I'll still lose time...
fix with %mvn_file :%{name} %{name} , is ok?
thanks

Comment 9 Michal Srb 2013-06-28 08:28:05 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> I apologize if I'll still lose time...
> fix with %mvn_file :%{name} %{name} , is ok?
> thanks

Yep, this will do the trick for you. No symlinks, no %{_javadir}/%{name}/ directory, JAR will be in %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar

Comment 10 gil cattaneo 2013-06-28 08:33:10 UTC
Thanks!

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jatl.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jatl-0.2.2-1.fc18.src.rpm
- removed redundant BuildRequires
- used XMvn

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jatl
Short Description: Java Anti-Template Language
Owners: gil
Branches: f19
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 11 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-06-28 11:52:52 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2013-06-28 12:29:42 UTC
jatl-0.2.2-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jatl-0.2.2-1.fc19

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2013-06-29 15:25:58 UTC
jatl-0.2.2-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2013-07-07 01:35:22 UTC
jatl-0.2.2-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.


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