[Bug 1538355] New: Review Request: jackson-dataformats-binary - Jackson standard binary dataformat backends
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538355
Bug ID: 1538355 Summary: Review Request: jackson-dataformats-binary - Jackson standard binary dataformat backends Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mat.booth@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/jackson-dataformats-binary.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/jackson-dataformats-binary-2.9.4-1....
Description: Parent pom for Jackson binary dataformats.
Fedora Account System Username: mbooth
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538355
--- Comment #1 from Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com --- Koji rawhide scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=24421790
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538355
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |akurtako@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |akurtako@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- I'll do this one.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538355
--- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== MUST items =====
Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 1148 files have unknown license. Despite the license check output there is clear statement that all code is ASL licensed even if misses header in README.md so it's fine. Misseing and BSD in License header.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 9 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 is included in %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [-]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jackson- dataformat-cbor , jackson-dataformat-smile , jackson-dataformats- binary-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.
Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: jackson-dataformats-binary-2.9.4-1.fc28.noarch.rpm jackson-dataformat-cbor-2.9.4-1.fc28.noarch.rpm jackson-dataformat-smile-2.9.4-1.fc28.noarch.rpm jackson-dataformats-binary-javadoc-2.9.4-1.fc28.noarch.rpm jackson-dataformats-binary-2.9.4-1.fc28.src.rpm jackson-dataformats-binary.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dataformat -> data format, data-format, formatted jackson-dataformats-binary.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dataformat -> data format, data-format, formatted 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- jackson-dataformats-binary.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) dataformat -> data format, data-format, formatted 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warning.
Requires -------- jackson-dataformats-binary (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson:jackson-base:pom:)
jackson-dataformats-binary-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools
jackson-dataformat-cbor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core)
jackson-dataformat-smile (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core)
Provides -------- jackson-dataformats-binary: jackson-dataformats-binary mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformats-binary:pom:)
jackson-dataformats-binary-javadoc: jackson-dataformat-cbor-javadoc jackson-dataformat-smile-javadoc jackson-dataformats-binary-javadoc
jackson-dataformat-cbor: jackson-dataformat-cbor mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformat-cbor) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformat-cbor:pom:) osgi(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat.jackson-dataformat-cbor)
jackson-dataformat-smile: jackson-dataformat-smile mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformat-smile) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformat-smile:pom:) osgi(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat.jackson-dataformat-smile)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformats-binary/archive/jackson-data... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 34431d906118e66cd59371a997ca4274ac560e43e6a6f5bf01d1e659af2127e3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 34431d906118e66cd59371a997ca4274ac560e43e6a6f5bf01d1e659af2127e3
Please adjust the License header and it's good to go.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538355
--- Comment #4 from Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com --- Fixed license header:
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/jackson-dataformats-binary.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/jackson-dataformats-binary-2.9.4-2....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538355
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- Thanks,
APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538355
--- Comment #6 from Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com --- New repo requested: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/4299
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538355
--- Comment #7 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jackson-dataformats-binary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538355
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- Mat, can we close this one now?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1538355
Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |jackson-dataformats-binary- | |2.9.4-3.fc28 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2018-03-01 08:23:44
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com