https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
Bug ID: 1100323 Summary: Review Request: log4j12 - Java logging package Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puntogil@libero.it QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12-1.2.17-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Log4j is a tool to help the programmer output log statements to a variety of output targets. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6875992
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1010003 (bigdata-review)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010003 [Bug 1010003] bigdata-sig review-tracker
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
Robert Rati rrati@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rrati@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rrati@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
Robert Rati rrati@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
--- Comment #1 from Robert Rati rrati@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable
Issues: ======= - Doesn't work as a compat package. log4j:log4j:1.2.17 won't resolve to this jar. I suggest adding %{version} to the mvn_compat_version line in the spec. Additionally, is the 12 in the mvn_compat_version 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size [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: No rpmlint messages. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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 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
Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [!]: Package functions as described.
Resolution for log4j:log4j:1.2.17 won't work.
[x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Tests are run as part of the build
[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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: log4j12-1.2.17-1.fc21.noarch.rpm log4j12-javadoc-1.2.17-1.fc21.noarch.rpm log4j12-1.2.17-1.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint log4j12-javadoc log4j12 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- log4j12-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
log4j12 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(javax.mail:mail) mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-jms_1.1_spec)
Provides -------- log4j12-javadoc: log4j12-javadoc
log4j12: log4j12 mvn(log4j:log4j:12) osgi(org.apache.log4j)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/apache/log4j/archive/v1_2_17.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 019f6a068a037126bf9f04d60ba9521378ebd7e371843979872b77cda485131b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 019f6a068a037126bf9f04d60ba9521378ebd7e371843979872b77cda485131b
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1100323 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
Robert Rati rrati@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ASSIGNED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Robert Rati from comment #1)
Issues:
- Doesn't work as a compat package. log4j:log4j:1.2.17 won't resolve to this jar. I suggest adding %{version} to the mvn_compat_version line in the spec. Additionally, is the 12 in the mvn_compat_version needed?
maybe, you should use (like for hsqldb1) log4j:log4j:12 now change %mvn_file %mvn_file log4j:log4j %{name} in %mvn_file log4j:log4j log4j
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12-1.2.17-1.fc19.src.rpm
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6877145
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12-1.2.17-2.fc19.src.rpm
- fix compat version
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6877601
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
--- Comment #4 from Robert Rati rrati@redhat.com --- SRPM doesn't exist. Please fix this and I can approve
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Sorry!, done.
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/log4j12-1.2.17-2.fc19.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6877790
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
Robert Rati rrati@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Robert Rati rrati@redhat.com --- APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: log4j12 Short Description: Java logging package Owners: gil InitialCC: java-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
--- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2014-05-27 11:01:28
--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6896525
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1100323
Gerard Ryan gerard@ryan.lt changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla