https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
Bug ID: 1908038 Summary: Review Request: jline2 - Java library for handling console input Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganjerry@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jline2/jline2.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jline2/jline2-2.14.6-11.fc34.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: JLine is a Java library for handling console input. It is similar in functionality to BSD editline and GNU readline. People familiar with the readline/editline capabilities for modern shells (such as bash and tcsh) will find most of the command editing features of JLine to be familiar.
This package contains the current contents of the jline package (with a few minor tweaks) so that jline can move to the 3.x series. As such, this review falls under the exemption granted in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Pro....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1908037 Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908037 [Bug 1908037] Review Request: jansi1 - Generate and interpret ANSI escape sequences in Java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2020-12-15 19:01:39
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- You didn't need to open a review request for a compat package, "fedpkg request-repo" does not need a bug in this case.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038 Bug 1908038 depends on bug 1908037, which changed state.
Bug 1908037 Summary: Review Request: jansi1 - Generate and interpret ANSI escape sequences in Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908037
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|NOTABUG |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- It turns out that there has been a jline2 package in Fedora before, so the request with --exception was denied. I apparently do need a re-review in order to make jline2 live again. Reopening.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. | |com Flags| |needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com)
--- Comment #3 from dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.com --- The package cannot be build in Rawhide: No matching package to install: 'mvn(org.fusesource.jansi:jansi:1)'
I also cannot build the package even with --enablerepo=local. Could you maybe double check if a build is available?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com) |
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Hi Dan. Sorry, I should have updated the instructions. The jansi1 package has been built into a side tag, f34-build-side-35261. Both jansi1 and this package are also available in COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jjames/scala/.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. | |com
--- Comment #5 from dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.com --- I've managed to build jline2 now, thanks for the tipps Jerry!
Overall the package looks good to me, but there's two issues: - no license is included in the rpm, although upstream ships one (also in the tarball: LICENSE.txt) - something weird is going on with the directory ownership, apparently a whole bunch of dirs under /usr/share/javadoc/jline2 are owned by the main and by the javadoc subpackage
Once those are addressed, I'll be more than happy to approve this package.
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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 89 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora-scm/1908038-jline2/licensecheck.txt [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/javadoc/jline2(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline/class-use(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline/console(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline/console/class-use(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline/console/completer(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline/console/completer/class- use(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline/console/history(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline/console/history/class- use(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline/console/internal(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline/console/internal/class- use(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline/internal(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jline/internal/class-use(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jquery(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jquery/external(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jquery/external/jquery(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jquery/images(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jquery/jszip(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jquery/jszip-utils(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jquery/jszip-utils/dist(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/jquery/jszip/dist(jline2-javadoc), /usr/share/javadoc/jline2/resources(jline2-javadoc) [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. [x]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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.
===== 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: jline2-2.14.6-11.fc34.noarch.rpm jline2-2.14.6-11.fc34.src.rpm jline2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JLine -> J Line, Line, Aline jline2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US editline -> edit line, edit-line, lined jline2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readline -> breadline, deadline, headline jline2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcsh -> tosh, tush jline2.noarch: W: no-documentation jline2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JLine -> J Line, Line, Aline jline2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US editline -> edit line, edit-line, lined jline2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readline -> breadline, deadline, headline jline2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcsh -> tosh, tush 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- jline2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JLine -> J Line, Line, Aline jline2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US editline -> edit line, edit-line, lined jline2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readline -> breadline, deadline, headline jline2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcsh -> tosh, tush jline2.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jline/jline2/archive/jline-2.14.6.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c6205afb214288cd8ef53f1ea1243ba9388c84b55c929f0b9e6cee7757c6efac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c6205afb214288cd8ef53f1ea1243ba9388c84b55c929f0b9e6cee7757c6efac
Requires -------- jline2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(org.fusesource.jansi:jansi:1.18)
Provides -------- jline2: jline2 mvn(jline:jline) mvn(jline:jline:pom:) osgi(jline)
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m /etc/mock/fedora-rawhide-jjames-scala.cfg -b 1908038 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-ocaml-devel Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, SugarActivity, C/C++, PHP, Ocaml, Python, R, Perl Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thanks, Dan. I have added a license file to the main package and removed the duplicate javadocs from the main package. The URLs are the same. The fixed version is building in COPR now.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from dan.cermak@cgc-instruments.com --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #6)
Thanks, Dan. I have added a license file to the main package and removed the duplicate javadocs from the main package. The URLs are the same. The fixed version is building in COPR now.
Hm, fedora-review is still complaining about the directory ownership. However, it's only about /usr/share/licenses/jline2 so I think that should be ok.
Thanks for bringing jline2 back!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
--- Comment #8 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review, Dan! Unretirement request: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9924
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
--- Comment #9 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Oh, I forgot to mention that the fedora-review complaint is because both the main package and the javadoc package contain the license file. Since neither depends on the other, this is necessary. The contents of the file are exactly the same in both cases, so this is okay from an RPM standpoint.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908038
Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED CC| |didiksupriadi41@gmail.com Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed|2020-12-15 19:01:39 |2021-10-22 17:08:17
--- Comment #10 from Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com --- This package is now in Fedora repo hence closing this review.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com