[Bug 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-08-10 18:31:48 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- classycle-1.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- classycle-1.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository. -- 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mgold...@redhat.com Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mgold...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- I'm taking this for 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792
--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x] Rpmlint output:
SPECS/classycle.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: classycle-1.4-src-svn.tar.gz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
classycle.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Analysing - Analyzing,
Analysis, Signaling
classycle.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analyse - analyses,
analyst, analyze
classycle.src: W: invalid-url Source0: classycle-1.4-src-svn.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
classycle.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Analysing - Analyzing,
Analysis, Signaling
classycle.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US analyse - analyses,
analyst, analyze
classycle-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://classycle.sourceforge.net/
HTTP Error 503: Service Unavailable
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
[x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x] Buildroot definition is not present
[x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: BSD
[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] All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x] Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package: bd336a4681f529ba8fe3b0230f8962a5
MD5SUM upstream package: 4f314f5fe9d591eda6a6d7ce40f51fa2
SVN export, ok.
[x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x] Permissions on files are set properly.
[x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x] Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x] Package uses %global not %define
[x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven ===
[x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-] If package uses -Dmaven.test.skip=true explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-] If package uses custom depmap -Dmaven.local.depmap.file=* explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions ===
[!] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
See issue #1.
[x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x] Latest version is packaged.
[x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4350737
=== Issues ===
1. Please remove the Maven build method and use upstream Ant build. This will
make it easier to maintain. Don't forget to add the pom file from maven
central.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
[Bug 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/classycle/1/classycle.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/classycle/1/classycle-1.4-2.fc16.src.rpm - Remove the Maven build method -- 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?, fedora-cvs? --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: classycle Short Description: Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies Owners: gil 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 --- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Marek, please set the review flag to +. -- 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+, fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Marek Goldmann mgold...@redhat.com --- Fixed. Someone should really fix the Bugzilla bug finally, it's annoying. -- 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). There's an open Trac. -- 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- classycle-1.4-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/classycle-1.4-2.fc17 -- 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||809950 -- 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 844792] Review Request: classycle - Analysing Tools for Java Class and Package Dependencies
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=844792 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it 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
