Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.

Bug 227094

Summary: Review Request: plexus-ant-factory-1.0-0.a1.2jpp - Plexus Component Creator
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Rafael H. Schloming <rafaels>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Deepak Bhole <dbhole>
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: tross
Target Milestone: ---Flags: pcheung: fedora-review+
wtogami: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-02-28 01:03:44 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 17:49:30 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: The Plexus project seeks to create end-to-end developer tools for
writing applications. At the core is the container, which can be
embedded or for a full scale application server. There are many
reusable components for hibernate, form processing, jndi, i18n,
velocity, etc. Plexus also includes an application server which
is like a J2EE application server, without all the baggage.

Javadoc for plexus-ant-factory.

Comment 1 Tania Bento 2007-02-23 19:33:46 UTC
Here are the links to the updated spec file and source rpm:



Comment 2 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-05 18:57:10 UTC
I'll take this one as well.

Comment 3 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-05 21:45:07 UTC
Please fix items marked by X, thanks!
* package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
 - specfile should be %{name}.spec
 - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
 - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
 - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
   not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
 - OSI-approved
 - not a kernel module
 - not shareware
 - is it covered by patents?
 - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
 - no binary firmware
X license field matches the actual license.
 This is MIT-Style license
* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
* specfile name matches %{name}
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
 - md5sum mismatch, but diff -r shows contents are the same.
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
* if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
X license text included in package and marked with %doc
- no license marked with %doc
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
* packages meets FHS (
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
W: plexus-ant-factory non-standard-group Development/Java
W: plexus-ant-factory mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 57)
* changelog format is ok
* Packager tag should not be used
* Vendor tag should not be used
* Distribution tag should not be used
* use License and not Copyright
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
X specfile is legible
 - should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please
get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0
-  the %define gcj_support .... doesn't seems like it can be split up
  into multiple lines
- for the %post and %postun, the if condition should probably be before the
 the %post[,un] so that there won't be an empty %post[,un] if gcj_support is 0.
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
   fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
* use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package should probably not be relocatable
* package contains code
 - see
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
* package should own all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files should not affect runtime
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
will do these when issues are fixed
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
no license text marked with %doc
* package should build on i386
* package should build in mock
will try to build after issues are fixed, and BR's are built.

Comment 4 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-07 04:31:53 UTC
Missing BR:
BuildRequires:        maven2-plugin-release

Comment 5 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-10 00:21:22 UTC
New spec and srpm:

1. BR's are fixed
2. Files section is fixed
3. Tarball creation command is fixed
4. License is fixed
5. Spacing is fixed

Since the project does not include a License.txt, there is nothing to put as %doc
for that.

Comment 6 Permaine Cheung 2007-03-12 14:47:10 UTC
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires
jpackage-utils >= 0:1.7.2
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides
config(plexus-ant-factory) = 0:1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7
plexus-ant-factory = 0:1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires
config(plexus-ant-factory) = 0:1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7
jpackage-utils >= 0:1.7.2
jpackage-utils >= 0:1.7.2
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --requires
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpm -qp --provides
plexus-ant-factory-debuginfo = 0:1.0-0.1.a1.2jpp.1.fc7

* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs built in mock
[pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpmlint
W: plexus-ant-factory non-standard-group Development/Java
W: plexus-ant-factory non-standard-group Development/Java
W: plexus-ant-factory no-documentation


Reassigning for building in plague.

Comment 7 Deepak Bhole 2007-03-13 04:22:35 UTC
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: plexus-ant-factory
Short Description: Plexus Component Creator
Branches: devel

Comment 8 Bernard Johnson 2007-04-11 22:49:08 UTC
Pardon the bugzilla spam.  This package appears to have been approved, imported,
and built.

If that is the case, please close this bug RESOLVE -> NEXTRELEASE as documented
in the package review process: