Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=596125
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky socho...@redhat.com 2010-05-26
09:19:17 EDT ---
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
maven-skins.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-skins-5.tar.xz
maven-skins.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-skins.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven-skins
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
It might be nice to actually describe why it's needed to use
repository. I assume it's because it's not packaged separately from maven. That
is also why there is no separate documentation. Am I correct?
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK(koji): The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on
at least one primary architecture.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings.
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line.
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
then please present that at package review time.
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Other:
you have:
install -pm 644 maven-application-skin/pom.xml \
%{buildroot}%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP.%{name}-maven-application-skin.pom
and then
%add_to_maven_depmap org.apache.maven.skins maven-application-skin %{version}
JPP/maven-skins maven-application-skin
Is this going to work? You install for example
/usr/share/maven2/poms/JPP.maven-skins-maven-application-skin.pom
and then tell maven that it's JPP/maven-skins groupID and
maven-application-skin artifactId. Shouldn't last argument to
add_to_maven_depmap be: %{name}-maven-application-skin ? Or alternatively
change install and leave add_to_maven_depmap be?
So please just explain this thing and why you used SVN and I can approve this
package, because otherwise it's OK.
--
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
--- 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
