[Bug 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 Richard Marko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed||2013-12-03 08:14:21 -- 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- Don't set the cvs flag unless you need a change made. -- 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 --- Comment #9 from Jason Tibbitts --- What did you need from the SCM admins? -- 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |RELEASE_PENDING Flags|fedora-cvs+ |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from Lubomir Rintel --- Imported and built. Thank you. -- 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). Flags weren't set correctly. -- 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Flags|fedora-review+ |fedora-review?, fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from Lubomir Rintel --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jackrabbit Short Description: Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API Owners: lkundrak Branches: f16 f17 f18 el6 -- 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596
Richard Marko changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Richard Marko ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[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.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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.
[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 macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[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 Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[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 systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[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.
[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).
[-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[?]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Patch0 (0001-Conform-to-newer-servlet-API.patch)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: 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.
[!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserv
[Bug 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 --- Comment #4 from Lubomir Rintel --- Riško, tu sa pekidže domočili: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4371963 -- 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW --- Comment #3 from Lubomir Rintel --- SPEC: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SPECS/jackrabbit.spec SRPM: http://v3.sk/~lkundrak/SRPMS/jackrabbit-2.4.2-2.el6.src.rpm -- 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 Richard Marko changed: What|Removed |Added Component|p11-kit |Package Review Assignee|rma...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org -- 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 Richard Marko changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||kalevlem...@gmail.com, ||mcla...@redhat.com, ||rma...@redhat.com, ||st...@redhat.com, ||tm...@redhat.com Component|Package Review |p11-kit Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rma...@redhat.com --- Comment #2 from Richard Marko --- Scratch build for F17 fails: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4369118 -- 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 Richard Marko changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|rma...@redhat.com 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 Lubomir Rintel changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||846597 -- 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 845596] Review Request: jackrabbit - Implementation of the Content Repository for Java Technology API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=845596 --- Comment #1 from Lubomir Rintel --- Note that this only packages webdav subpackage at this point, I don't really care about getting the rest in. If anyone else does, he's more than welcome to extend the package. Description: This is the WebDAV Library component of the Apache Jackrabbit project. This component provides interfaces and common utility classes used for building a WebDAV server or client. -- 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
