[Bug 1214638] Review Request: tycho-pomless - POM-less Tycho build extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214638

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2015-10-03 19:56:08



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1214638] Review Request: tycho-pomless - POM-less Tycho build extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214638

Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1214638] Review Request: tycho-pomless - POM-less Tycho build extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214638



--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1214638] Review Request: tycho-pomless - POM-less Tycho build extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214638



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==

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


Issues:
===
- 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.
  Note: Cannot find epl-v10.html in rpm(s)
  See:
  http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text


= MUST items =

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
 supported primary architecture.
 Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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. Licenses found:
 Unknown or generated. 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
 licensecheck in /home/gil/1214638-tycho-pomless/review-tycho-
 pomless/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
 Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata, /usr/share/licenses
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
 Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/xmvn/lib,
 /usr/share/xmvn, /usr/share/xmvn/lib/ext, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share
 /maven-metadata
[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 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
[-]: 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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
 Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
[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)

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

= 

[Bug 1214638] Review Request: tycho-pomless - POM-less Tycho build extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214638

gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
NON blocking issues:

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

[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

Please, ask to upstream to include license file

tycho-pomless.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/tycho-pomless/README.md

Please, fix at import time

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1214638] Review Request: tycho-pomless - POM-less Tycho build extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214638

gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1214638] Review Request: tycho-pomless - POM-less Tycho build extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214638

gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it
  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1214638] Review Request: tycho-pomless - POM-less Tycho build extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214638

gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1214638] Review Request: tycho-pomless - POM-less Tycho build extension

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1214638

Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com ---
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: tycho-pomless
Short Description: POM-less Tycho build extension
Owners: mizdebsk msimacek msrb group::eclipse-sig
Branches: f22
InitialCC: java-sig

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review