https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Bug ID: 830763 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: jbosgi-framework - JBoss OSGi Core Framework Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mgoldman@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-framework/1.1.8-1/jbo... SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-framework/1.1.8-1/jbo... Description: This package contains the JBoss OSGi Core Framework. Fedora Account System Username: goldmann
Note for reviewer: there is a newer version available, but it's a major upgrade to what AS7 expects. Will be updated once AS7 move to newer version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Depends On| |830125, 829329, 829402, | |830750
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
--- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com --- Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-framework/1.1.8-2/jbo... SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-framework/1.1.8-2/jbo...
Fixed BR and R after jbosgi-resover rename to jbosgi-resolver1.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |832443
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |832446
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4199373
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mizdebsk@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mizdebsk@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- I am taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |830677
--- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- So far it doesn't build because of missing jbosgi-deployment. I added missing bug dependency and I will wait for jbosgi-deployment to appear in rawhide before continuing.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
--- Comment #5 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 [!]: 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. [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 Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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. [!]: 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). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [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. [?]: MUST Package installs properly. [ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. [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. [!]: 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). [!]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [!]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0: jbosgi-framework-%{namedversion}.tar.xz (jbosgi- framework-%{namedversion}.tar.xz) Patch0: 0001-Disable-assembly- plugin.patch (0001-Disable-assembly-plugin.patch) Patch1: 0002-Disable- itest-module.patch (0002-Disable-itest-module.patch) [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.
Notes:
[?]: MUST Package installs properly.
I haven't verified if the package installs properly because one requirement is not available in Fedora Rawhide yet.
Blocker issues:
[!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
jbosgi-framework bundles parts of felix-framework and felix-osgi-compendium. Files in ./core/src/main/java/org/osgi/util/tracker come from felix-framework, while ./core/src/main/java/org/osgi/util/xml/* comes from felix-osgi-compendium.
Bundled libraries need to be removed, or an exception from Fedora Packaging Committee must be obtained. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
The bundled libraries are made available under Apache License Version 2.0. If they are to be kept, the license field must be changed to LGPLv2+ and ASL 2.0.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
--- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com --- Removed bundles files.
Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-framework/1.1.8-3/jbo... SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-framework/1.1.8-3/jbo...
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4199958
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- Tested on Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4199996
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint jbosgi-framework-1.1.8-3.fc17.src.rpm jbosgi-framework.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) JBoss -> J Boss, Boss jbosgi-framework.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jbosgi-framework.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jbosgi-framework-1.1.8.Final.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
$ rpmlint jbosgi-framework.spec jbosgi-framework.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jbosgi-framework-1.1.8.Final.tar.xz 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint jbosgi-framework-1.1.8-3.fc18.noarch.rpm jbosgi-framework.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) JBoss -> J Boss, Boss jbosgi-framework.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
$ rpmlint jbosgi-framework-javadoc-1.1.8-3.fc18.noarch.rpm jbosgi-framework-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados jbosgi-framework-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
The above rpmlint warnings can be ignored.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com --- Thanks for review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jbosgi-framework Short Description: JBoss OSGi Core Framework Owners: goldmann Branches: f17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jbosgi-framework-1.1.8-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbosgi-framework-1.1.8-3.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jbosgi-framework-1.1.8-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830763
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-07-05 19:32:08
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jbosgi-framework-1.1.8-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla