Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: apache-commons-javaflow - Commons Javaflow
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
Summary: Review Request: apache-commons-javaflow - Commons Javaflow Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: puntogil@libero.it QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: --- Regression: --- Mount Type: --- Documentation: ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-javaflow.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-javaflow-1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Sometimes it is useful if we can capture the state of the application, its stack of function calls, which includes local variables, the global variables and the program counter, and save them into an object. If this object would give us the ability to restart the processing from the point stored in it. A continuation is exactly the type of object that we need. Think of a continuation as an object that, for a given point in your program, contains a snapshot of the stack trace, including all the local variables, and the program counter. You can not only store these things in the continuation object, but also restore the execution of the program from a continuation object. This means that the stack trace and the program counter of the running program become the ones stored in a continuation. Continuations are powerful concepts from the world of functional languages, like Scheme, but they are becoming popular in other languages as well.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |820341, 820343
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |820548
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mizdebsk@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mizdebsk@redhat.com QA Contact|extras-qa@fedoraproject.org |mizdebsk@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- I am taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- QA Contact|mizdebsk@redhat.com |extras-qa@fedoraproject.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4174731
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
--- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: %config %{_sysconfdir}/ant.d/%{short_name} [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST No %config files under /usr. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint apache-commons-javaflow-1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint apache-commons-javaflow-javadoc-1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
rpmlint apache-commons-javaflow-1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm
apache-commons-javaflow.src: W: invalid-url Source0: commons-javaflow-1.0-SNAPSHOT-src-svn.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
rpmlint apache-commons-javaflow-ant-1.0-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
apache-commons-javaflow-ant.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ant.d/commons-javaflow apache-commons-javaflow-ant.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
These can be ignored.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Package has no sources or they are generated by developer [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
==== Java ==== [x]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
==== Maven ==== [x]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
Issues: [!]: MUST %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: %config %{_sysconfdir}/ant.d/%{short_name}
Use %config(noreplace) instead of plain %config. For more information, see: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
[!]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
A pre-release version is packaged. You must follow the guideliness at: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_package...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-javaflow/1/apache-commons-javaflo... SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-javaflow/1/apache-commons-javaflo...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-javaflow/1/apache-commons-javaflo... SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-javaflow/1/apache-commons-javaflo...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-javaflow/1/apache-commons-javaflo... SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-javaflow/1/apache-commons-javaflo...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sochotni@redhat.com
--- Comment #7 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com --- It would be nice to come up with a more descriptive summary :-)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- It's OK now.
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4193137
************** ** APPROVED ** **************
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: apache-commons-javaflow Short Description: Commons Javaflow Owners: gil Branches: f17 InitialCC: java-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- apache-commons-javaflow-1.0-0.1.20120509SNAPSHOT.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apache-commons-javaflow-1.0-0.1.2012...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- apache-commons-javaflow-1.0-0.1.20120509SNAPSHOT.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=820344
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-07-05 19:27:46
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- apache-commons-javaflow-1.0-0.1.20120509SNAPSHOT.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla