[Bug 857080] New: Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
Bug ID: 857080 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: puntogil@libero.it Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-annotations.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-annotations-2.0.6-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Core annotations used for value types, used by Jackson data-binding package. Fedora Account System Username: gil
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |857077, 857079
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |857102
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |jackson-annotations - Core |jackson2-annotations - Core |annotations for Jackson |annotations for Jackson |data processor |data processor
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson2/jackson2-annotations.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson2/jackson2-annotations-2.1.0-1.fc16.src.r...
- update to 2.1.0 - renamed jackson2-annotations
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
Bug 857080 depends on bug 857079, which changed state.
Bug 857079 Summary: Review Request: fasterxml-oss-parent - FasterXML parent pom https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857079
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson2/1/jackson2-annotations.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson2/1/jackson2-annotations-2.2.1-1.fc18.src...
- update to 2.2.1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |984554
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson2-annotations.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson2-annotations-2.2.1-1.fc19.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mgoldman@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mgoldman@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com --- Taking this for a review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@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. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jackson2 -annotations-javadoc [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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". 34 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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 %doc. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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 [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: No rpmlint messages.
Java: [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) 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 DOES 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 %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: jackson2-annotations-2.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm jackson2-annotations-javadoc-2.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jackson2-annotations jackson2-annotations-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- jackson2-annotations (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils
jackson2-annotations-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
Provides -------- jackson2-annotations: jackson2-annotations mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotations) osgi(com.fasterxml.jackson.core.jackson-annotations)
jackson2-annotations-javadoc: jackson2-annotations-javadoc
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-annotations/archive/jackson-annotations... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 01fa3809307dfe012be2d46a20e7c22f8e463f123fa4a42ddc336d2705f2594c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 01fa3809307dfe012be2d46a20e7c22f8e463f123fa4a42ddc336d2705f2594c http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 857080 -m fedora-rawhide-i386
================ *** APPROVED *** ================
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jackson2-annotations Short Description: Core annotations for Jackson data processor Owners: gil Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: java-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jackson2-annotations Short Description: Core annotations for Jackson data processor Owners: gil Branches: f19 InitialCC: java-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
--- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
Bug 857080 depends on bug 857077, which changed state.
Bug 857077 Summary: Review Request: jackson2-core - Core part of Jackson https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857077
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NOTABUG Last Closed| |2013-07-22 06:46:37
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- replaced by jackson-annotations #986165
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |986170
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Resolution|NOTABUG |DUPLICATE
--- Comment #10 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com ---
*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 986165 ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=857080
Bug 857080 depends on bug 986170, which changed state.
Bug 986170 Summary: Review Request: jackson-core - Core part of Jackson https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986170
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla