[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2012-08-28 10:44:53 --- Comment #10 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Package is in F18 stable, closing. -- 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
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Sure, thanks. New Package SCM Request === Package Name: maven-script-interpreter Short Description: Maven Script Interpreter Owners: tradej Branches: f17 InitialCC: java-sig -- 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
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 --- Comment #9 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review? --- Comment #6 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Thank you for review, but I must ask you if you did manually all the checks that weren't already marked by FedoraReview. If you did, and just didn't mark them done, please do - it is very confusing to leave the [ ] blank. If you didn't do the manual tests (including the Generic section), please do. It is very important that reviewers check the packages themselves - FedoraReview is just a program and can't check some issues by definition. I will change the build encoding and description names. Removing fedora-review+. -- 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
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? | --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. hi i have a doubt about plexus-utils and bsh arent marked as Requires can you also add NOTICE to javadoc package? (see LICENSE) thanks -- 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
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-review- -- 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
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 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. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- take this review. -- 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
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570
gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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.
[ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[ ]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[ ]: MUST Package installs properly.
[ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint maven-script-interpreter-javadoc-1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint maven-script-interpreter-1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
maven-script-interpreter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
beanshell - bean shell, bean-shell, beans hell
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint maven-script-interpreter-1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
maven-script-interpreter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US beanshell
- bean shell, bean-shell, beans hell
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
maven-script-interpreter-1.0-source-release.zip :
MD5SUM this package : b7d1859dd80e8c37e97132d19e439e1e
MD5SUM upstream package : b7d1859dd80e8c37e97132d19e439e1e
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[ ]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[ ]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- hi rpmlint maven-script-interpreter-1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm maven-script-interpreter.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US beanshell - bean shell, bean-shell, beans hell 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. rpmlint maven-script-interpreter-1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm maven-script-interpreter.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US beanshell - bean shell, bean-shell, beans hell 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. can you change beanshell in BeanShell and groovy in Groovy? thanks -- 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
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- *** 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
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED -- 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
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 --- Comment #1 from Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com --- Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4325140 -- 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
[Bug 842570] Review Request: maven-script-interpreter - Maven Script Interpreter
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=842570 Tomas Radej tra...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- 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
