[Bug 837726] Review Request: eclipse-jbosstools - A set of Eclipse plugins that supports JBoss and related technology

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=837726

--- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann <mgoldman@xxxxxxxxxx> ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x]  Rpmlint output:

rpmlint SPECS/eclipse-jbosstools.spec 
SPECS/eclipse-jbosstools.spec:463: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces:
line 463, tab: line 1)
SPECS/eclipse-jbosstools.spec: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch2:
%{name}-x86_64.patch
SPECS/eclipse-jbosstools.spec: W: %ifarch-applied-patch Patch3:
%{name}-x86.patch
SPECS/eclipse-jbosstools.spec: W: invalid-url Source0:
eclipse-jbosstools-3.3.1.Final.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 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].
[!]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: EPL and LGPLv2+ and ASL 2.0

See issue #1.

[!]  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.

See issue #2.

[-]  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    :
MD5SUM upstream package:
[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)
[!]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)

See issue #3.

[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.
[!]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage

See issue #4.

[-]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[-]  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, ...)

See note #4.

[x]  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.
[-]  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

See issue #5.

[-]  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 ===
[x]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[-]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[-]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4347628

== Issues ==
1. I've scanned the code and couldn't find any files under Mozilla's license. I
suspect the License tag should look as follows: "EPL and LGPLv2+ and ASL 2.0".
Please note the change of version of ASL.
2. Please include license files in the resulting RPM for following licenses:
EPL, ASL 2.0 as per new guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
3. Decide if you want to use %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT in your spec file
and change
4. No javadocs?
5. Explain why are you skipping the tests when executing mvn-rpmbuild

== Notes ==

1. Update the information how to obtains the source code and create tarball.
2. jboss-as package is a required dependency?
3. Please use spaces in spec file, see rpmlint output.
4. Remove all *.jar files at the time of creating the tarball. This will
decrease the size and we'll not ship binaries. For info how to do this, take a
look at this:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/gitweb/?p=hornetq.git;a=blob;f=hornetq.spec;h=a43ca10aaac7606e3cb32da3819f1feee8e47120;hb=HEAD#l9

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]