Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: pdfbox -
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Summary: Review Request: pdfbox - Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: orion@cora.nwra.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-0.8.0-1.fc12.src.rpm
Description: Apache PDFBox is an open source Java PDF library for working with PDF documents. This project allows creation of new PDF documents, manipulation of existing documents and the ability to extract content from documents. Apache PDFBox also includes several command line utilities. Apache PDFBox is published under the Apache License v2.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |529433
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: pdfbox - |Review Request: pdfbox - | |Java PDF library
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |oget.fedora@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2009-10-17 17:30:21 EDT --- SPEC file looks pretty good to me, except I suspect that at least some of the BR's should be R's as well (bouncycastle-mail, icu4j etc.).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2009-10-19 11:32:57 EDT --- Probably true.
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-0.8.0-2.fc12.src.rpm
* Mon Oct 19 2009 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 0.8.0-2 - Add Requires
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #3 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2009-11-07 02:08:56 EDT --- Can you resubmit the scratch lucene build? It has disappeared from koji. After that, let me know. I can review this package so it will be ready to go when lucene is officially updated.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2009-11-07 11:01:43 EDT --- lucene 2.4.1 on F-12:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1794228
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |529283
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |oget.fedora@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2009-11-07 19:23:58 EDT --- I made the preliminary review on this package. It needs some work. I also need to see this building in koji in all archs before approving.
* These need to be added otherwise, package will not build in mock and/or will have broken deps: BuildRequires: ant-nodeps BuildRequires: junit BuildRequires: jakarta-commons-logging Requires: jakarta-commons-logging export CLASSPATH=$( ... jakarta-commons-logging junit) You don't necessarily need "Requires: junit". See below.
- Patches should be explained and be submitted to upstream. Since this is a pure Fedora specific patch we can ignore the upstream part.
* rpmlint says: pdfbox.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/pdfbox-0.8.0/RELEASE-NOTES.txt This can be corrected in %prep easily via sed 's|\r||' or similar.
pdfbox-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development Documentation Simply use "Documentation"
pdfbox.src:120: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} This can be ignored.
* This package includes fonts that are already available in Fedora. This is not allowed by the guidelines. You will need to patch the source to remove these fonts from the jar file and use the system ones instead. This will require adding Requires: bitstream-vera-sans-fonts See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy
! It would be good to run the supplied tests in %check via "ant test". But for this, you may need to add BuildRequires(check): ant-junit and *possibly* add this to classpath before you call "ant test"
? Test classes are being packaged (they end up in the final jar). Is this necessary? If yes, then you will need to add Requires: junit If not sure, please contact upstream.
! %attr(-,root,root) is not needed as I explained in the previous review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Bug 529441 depends on bug 529283, which changed state.
Bug 529283 Summary: Review Request: fontbox - Java library for working with PDF fonts https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529283
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #6 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2010-02-19 02:44:53 EST --- ping? any progress?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #7 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2010-02-19 13:01:47 EST --- Yes. 1.0.0 and I'm starting to package that up. I'm waiting a bit to see if we can get poms added to lucene and bouncycastle.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Bug 529441 depends on bug 529433, which changed state.
Bug 529433 Summary: Update to 2.4.1, 2.9.0 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529433
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |RAWHIDE Status|NEW |CLOSED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #8 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2010-11-06 01:57:29 EDT --- Orion, It's been a year. How is this coming?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(orion@cora.nwra.c | |om)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |647885 Flag|needinfo?(orion@cora.nwra.c | |om) |
--- Comment #9 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2010-11-06 11:52:18 EDT --- Slowly. More deps...
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.3.1-1.fc14.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #10 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2010-12-28 12:52:28 EST --- I think this is about right. Still need apache-rat.
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.4.0-2.fc14.src.rpm
* Tue Dec 27 2010 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 1.4.0-2 - Create sub-packages - Use depmap file
* Tue Dec 21 2010 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 1.4.0-1 - Update to 1.4.0
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #11 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2011-03-10 18:45:10 EST --- * Thu Mar 10 2011 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 1.5.0-1 - Update to 1.5.0
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.5.0-1.fc14.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Bug 529441 depends on bug 647885, which changed state.
Bug 647885 Summary: Review Request: apache-rat - Apache Release Audit Tool (RAT) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=647885
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |akurtako@redhat.com
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-04-07 05:02:48 EDT --- apache-rat is in Fedora now http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=11713
Orcan, would you do the review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orcan Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |NEW AssignedTo|oget.fedora@gmail.com |nobody@fedoraproject.org
--- Comment #13 from Orcan Ogetbil oget.fedora@gmail.com 2011-05-16 22:23:43 EDT --- Sorry guys. I thought we finished this one. I do not have the time to review it at this very moment but I'll try get to it soon, unless someone else picks it up.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-06-03 02:16:50 EDT --- Orion, would you please move the build to maven 3 (aka mvn-rpmbuild ) and I'll do the review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-06-03 03:30:09 EDT --- Also a single javadoc subpackage using javadoc:aggregate might be better.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #16 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2011-06-03 12:46:52 EDT --- * Fri Jun 3 2011 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 1.5.0-2 - Use maven 3 - Single javadoc package
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.5.0-2.fc15.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |akurtako@redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #17 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-08-10 07:57:53 EDT --- Comments: * please update to 1.6.0 * if we don't need the depmap anymore drop it or fix the comment * ant-nodeps is merged into ant please BR ant * please use the new name apache-commons-logging not jakarta-commons-logging * buildroot definition is not needed * post/postun %update_maven_depmap are no longer needed * rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as install first line and the clean section are no longer needed * please use the new %add_maven_depmap JPP....pom ...jar instead of the old %add_to_maven_depmap * %defattr(-,root,root,-) are no longer needed * installing NOTICE.txt README.txt RELEASE-NOTES.txt in main package only should be enough * I see downloadfile: [mkdir] Created dir: /home/akurtakov/work/rpmeditor-demo/pdfbox/pdfbox-1.5.0/pdfbox/download [get] Getting: http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/com/adobe/pdf/pcfi/2010.08.09/pcfi-2010.08.09.... [get] To: /home/akurtakov/work/rpmeditor-demo/pdfbox/pdfbox-1.5.0/pdfbox/download/pcfi-2010.08.09.jar in the build log please either patch it out to not be downloaded or stop it in some other way if not needed or whatever solution is best
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #18 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2011-08-10 14:12:51 EDT --- * Wed Aug 10 2011 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 1.6.0-1 - Update to 1.6.0 - Add pcfi-2010.08.09.jar to sources - Drop depmap - Use apache-commons-logging - Other cleanup
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.6.0-1.fc15.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #19 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-08-10 14:57:45 EDT --- Would you please package pcfi separately with proper license information? This was discussed on fedora-java channel. Here is the most relevant part: [21:52] <spot> okay, so it is the font metrics and the cmaps [21:52] <spot> I would prefer it not be bundled like that [21:53] <spot> but the licensing seems okay [21:53] <spot> http://jukka.zitting.name/2009/com.adobe.pdf/LICENSE.txt && http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/cmap/License [21:54] <akurtakov> yeah, I saw these but I got lost in the details [21:54] <spot> akurtakov: summary: have orionp make a pcfi package with proper license information included [21:54] <akurtakov> spot: ok, thanks [21:54] <spot> then have pdfbox use it normally
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #20 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-10-18 04:52:41 EDT --- Orion, still interested?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #21 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2011-10-18 11:44:16 EDT --- Somewhat, just very low priority. If someone else wants to take this on I'd be more than happy. I have an initial pcfi package here:
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pcfi.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pcfi-2010.08.09-1.fc15.src.rpm
Not sure what state it is in.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |749329
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #22 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2011-10-26 14:09:05 EDT --- * Mon Oct 24 2011 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 1.6.0-2 - BR separately packaged pcfi
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.6.0-2.fc16.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Bug 529441 depends on bug 749329, which changed state.
Bug 749329 Summary: Review Request: pcfi - PDF Core Font Information https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=749329
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(akurtako@redhat.c | |om)
--- Comment #23 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2011-11-21 18:54:13 EST --- Okay, should be good to go again.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review?, |fedora-review+ |needinfo?(akurtako@redhat.c | |om) |
--- Comment #24 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-12-16 11:31:32 EST ---
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 architecture. [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. [!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 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 [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 macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generates 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. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint pdfbox-javadoc-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
pdfbox-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint jempbox-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
jempbox.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C JempBox jempbox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subproject -> sub project, sub-project, projector 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint fontbox-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
fontbox.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C FontBox fontbox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subproject -> sub project, sub-project, projector 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint pdfbox-ant-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint pdfbox-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint pdfbox-app-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint pdfbox-1.6.0-2.fc17.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint pdfbox-lucene-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/akurtakov/tmp/529441/pdfbox-1.6.0-src.zip : MD5SUM this package : 103c620cd58d69f107c9a63f16ba7da7 MD5SUM upstream package : 103c620cd58d69f107c9a63f16ba7da7
[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. [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). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [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. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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. [-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
==== Java ==== [-]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
==== Maven ==== [x]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [x]: MUST pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call [x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
Issues: * deffattr on the main package can be dropped too but not a blocker
APPROVED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #25 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2011-12-16 11:40:54 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: pdfbox Short Description: Java PDF library Owners: orion Branches: f16 el6 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
--- Comment #26 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com 2011-12-16 12:04:31 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529441
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-12-21 13:41:56
--- Comment #27 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2011-12-21 13:41:56 EST --- Checked in and built. Thanks all.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org