https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=871898
Tomas Radej <tra...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Tomas Radej <tra...@redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Notes:
======
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
>>>> Reviewer has an old maven version and doesn't want to break his
>>>> system by using rawhide packages. Builds well in Koji.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (maven-plugins-23-source-release.zip)
>>>> Understandable. Ignore that.
===== 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.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[-]: %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.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[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]: 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.
Java:
[-]: If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[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
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:
[!]: 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}.
Note: Source0 (maven-plugins-23-source-release.zip)
[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.
[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)
[-]: 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.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: maven-plugins-pom-23-2.fc19.src.rpm
maven-plugins-pom-23-2.fc19.noarch.rpm
maven-plugins-pom.src: W: no-%build-section
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint maven-plugins-pom
maven-plugins-pom.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
maven-plugins-pom-23-2.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jpackage-utils
Provides
--------
maven-plugins-pom-23-2.fc19.noarch.rpm:
maven-plugins-pom = 23-2.fc19
mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-plugins) = 23
MD5-sum check
-------------
http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-plugins/23/maven-plugins-23-source-release.zip
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
d8e8a1ecbc0a5ebfc161d8c7941328b56bce1bb8512ccbfcb91c960af1001c3e
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
d8e8a1ecbc0a5ebfc161d8c7941328b56bce1bb8512ccbfcb91c960af1001c3e
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (c78e275) last change: 2012-09-24
Buildroot used: fedora-16-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -vpn maven-plugins-pom
*** APPROVED ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
