https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172052
Bug ID: 2172052 Summary: Review Request: maven-bundle-plugin - Maven Bundle Plugin Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mkoncek@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/maven-bundle-plug... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/mkoncek/maven-bundle-plug... Description: Provides a maven plugin that supports creating an OSGi bundle from the contents of the compilation classpath along with its resources and dependencies. Plus a zillion other features. Fedora Account System Username: mkoncek
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172052
--- Comment #1 from Marián Konček mkoncek@redhat.com --- This is a package rename from maven-plugin-bundle in order to follow upstream project name.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172052
Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://felix.apache.org
--- Comment #2 from Jakub Kadlčík jkadlcik@redhat.com --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/5552941 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172052
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mizdebsk@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mizdebsk@redhat.com
--- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- I hereby acknowledge that this is a package rename. I will do this review in accordance with Package Renaming Process at https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/package-maintainers/Package_Renaming_Pr...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172052
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== Generic reqired items ===
[x] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.
[x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.
[x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines.
[x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.
[x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
[x] 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 must be included in %license.
[x] The spec file must be written in American English.
[x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
[x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.
[x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture.
[x] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line.
[!] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires.
Package build-depends on slf4j-api, but mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) is not listed amongs BuildRequires.
[x] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
[x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
[-] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker.
[x] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
[x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file’s %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
[x] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.
[x] Each package must consistently use macros.
[x] The package must contain code, or permissible content.
[x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager’s best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity).
[x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present.
[-] Static libraries must be in a -static package.
[-] Development files must be in a -devel package.
[-] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
[x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
[-] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation.
[x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time.
[x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x] Packages being added to the distribution MUST NOT depend on any packages which have been marked as being deprecated.
=== Generic optional items ===
[-] 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] The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[?] The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
[?] The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
[-] If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity.
[-] Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency.
[-] The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
[-] If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself.
[-] The package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn’t, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.
=== Java required items ===
[x] Binary *.class and *.jar files from upstream releases MUST NOT be used during build of Fedora packages and they MUST NOT be included in binary RPM.
[x] All architecture-independent JAR files MUST go into %{_javadir} or its subdirectory.
[x] Java packages MUST BuildRequire their respective build system:
[x] Java binary packages MUST have transitive Requires on: java-headless, java, java-devel
[x] Java binary packages MUST have transitive Requires on: javapackages-filesystem, javapackages-tools
[x] If javadoc documentation is generated it MUST be installed into a directory of %{_javadocdir}/%{name} as part of %{name}-javadoc subpackage
[-] Compatibility packages MUST be named in the same way as original except addition of version to package name,
[-] Any compatibility JAR and POM files MUST be versioned.
=== Java optional items ===
[x] If the package provides a single JAR file installed filename SHOULD be %{name}.jar.
[-] If the package provides multiple JAR files, they SHOULD be installed in a %{name} subdirectory.
[-] Applications wishing to provide a convenient method of execution SHOULD provide a wrapper script in %{_bindir}. Packages SHOULD use %jpackage_script to create these wrapper scripts.
=== rpmlint output === rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 3
maven-bundle-plugin-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99% maven-bundle-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
=== Issues === 1. Package build-depends on slf4j-api, but mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) is not listed amongs BuildRequires.
=== Final Notes === 1. Package does not use SPDX in License, but SPDX is required only for newly-added packages, and this is not a new package in Fedora, but merely a rename of existing package. 2. Package is conditionally approved, please fix missing BuildRequires.
================ *** APPROVED *** ================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172052
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maven-bundle-plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172052
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2172052
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2023-03-08 09:53:11
--- Comment #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- Renamed package was pushed to rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-663517ef98 Closing.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com