Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/99soft-oss-parent.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/99soft-oss-parent-10-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: The 99 Software Foundation parent pom. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/99soft-oss-parent.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/99soft-oss-parent-10-1.fc20.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8797050
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8797158
No comments at all, clean review: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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]: 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 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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: 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 Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO 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: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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 (not strictly required in GL). [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 unless justified. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: 99soft-oss-parent-10-1.fc23.noarch.rpm 99soft-oss-parent-10-1.fc23.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- 99soft-oss-parent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(org.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-enforcer-plugin) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-jar-plugin) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-scm-plugin) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-site-plugin) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin) mvn(org.codehaus.mojo:buildnumber-maven-plugin) Provides -------- 99soft-oss-parent: 99soft-oss-parent mvn(org.99soft:oss-parent:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/99soft/infra/archive/oss-parent-10.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b9851a627082570f14e1435bfc07ca4a6616a9ee672e19c710de8d8d321b2a59 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9851a627082570f14e1435bfc07ca4a6616a9ee672e19c710de8d8d321b2a59 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 979727 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Looks good. *** Approved
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: 99soft-oss-parent Short Description: 99 Software Foundation parent pom Upstream URL: https://github.com/99soft/ Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
99soft-oss-parent-10-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/99soft-oss-parent-10-1.fc22
99soft-oss-parent-10-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
One question: shouldn't the URL be https://github.com/99soft/infra instead of just https://github.com/99soft/ ?
(In reply to Pierre-YvesChibon from comment #9) > One question: shouldn't the URL be https://github.com/99soft/infra instead > of just https://github.com/99soft/ ? changed in 99soft-oss-parent-10-2.fc23
Many thanks :) I also fixed it in anitya, so notification should happen nicely
99soft-oss-parent-10-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.