Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework Product: Fedora Extras Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: normal Priority: normal Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: rafaels@redhat.com QAContact: fedora-package-review@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://people.redhat.com/rafaels/specs/classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp.spec SRPM URL: ftp://jpackage.hmdc.harvard.edu/JPackage/1.7/generic/SRPMS.free/classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp.src.rpm Description: Classworlds is a framework for container developers who require complex manipulation of Java's ClassLoaders. Java's native ClassLoader mechanims and classes can cause much headache and confusion for certain types of application developers. Projects which involve dynamic loading of components or otherwise represent a 'container' can benefit from the classloading control provided by classworlds.
Javadoc for classworlds.
Docs for classworlds.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
overholt@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |overholt@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 report.
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
overholt@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt@redhat.com |dbhole@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From overholt@redhat.com 2007-02-15 18:15 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM (move to 1.1 final):
http://overholt.ca/fedora/classworlds.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/classworlds-1.1-1jpp.1.src.rpm
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
dbhole@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole@redhat.com |overholt@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From dbhole@redhat.com 2007-02-15 20:02 EST ------- MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name OK
- try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency OK
- specfile should be %{name}.spec OK
- non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) OK
- for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease OK
- 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 OK
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved OK
- not a kernel module OK
- not shareware OK
- is it covered by patents? OK
- it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator OK
- no binary firmware OK
* license field matches the actual license. OK
* license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common OK
* specfile name matches %{name} OK
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah md5s do not match, but contents do
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK
* correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK
X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) release tag should have a %{?dist}
* license text included in package and marked with %doc OK
* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK
* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK
X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there Perhaps change group for javadoc to "Documentation".. ? I will not block on this though
* changelog should be in one of these formats:
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax.
* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating jkeating@redhat.com - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax.
* Packager tag should not be used OK
* Vendor tag should not be used OK
* Distribution tag should not be used OK
* use License and not Copyright OK
* Summary tag should not end in a period OK
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK
* specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 OK
* BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 coreutils cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which
OK
* summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK
* description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK
* specfile written in American English OK
* make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160... OK
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK
* don't use rpath OK
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) OK
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files OK
* 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 OK
* don't use %makeinstall OK
* locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK
* package should probably not be relocatable OK
* package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK
X * package should own all directories and files /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement
* there should be no %files duplicates OK
* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK
* %clean should be present Ok
* %doc files should not affect runtime OK
* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs OK
* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs OK
SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc OK
* package should build on i386 OK
* package should build in mock
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
overholt@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt@redhat.com |dbhole@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From overholt@redhat.com 2007-02-16 11:58 EST ------- Updated spec and SRPM:
http://overholt.ca/fedora/classworlds.spec http://overholt.ca/fedora/classworlds-1.1-1jpp.1.src.rpm
(In reply to comment #2)
X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) release tag should have a %{?dist}
Fixed.
X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
Perhaps change group for javadoc to "Documentation".. ? I will not block on this though
Fixed.
X * package should own all directories and files /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement
Fixed.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
dbhole@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|dbhole@redhat.com |nsantos@redhat.com Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From dbhole@redhat.com 2007-02-16 15:15 EST ------- APPROVED. Reassigning to component owner.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
nsantos@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From nsantos@redhat.com 2007-02-21 16:12 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp Short Description: Classworlds Classloader Framework Owners: nsantos@redhat.com Branches: FC-7 InitialCC: rafaels@redhat.com,dbhole@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
wtogami@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Severity|normal |medium
nsantos@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 report.
Summary: Review Request: classworlds-1.1-0.a2.2jpp - Classworlds Classloader Framework
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227047
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Priority|normal |medium
tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 | nThis| |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org