Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: classmate - ClassMate
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
Summary: Review Request: classmate - ClassMate 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/classmate.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/classmate-0.5.4-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Library for introspecting types with full generic information including resolving of field and method types.
Tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4013041
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=815060
Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: classmate - |Review Request: classmate - |ClassMate |Java introspection library
--- Comment #1 from Michael Schwendt mschwendt@gmail.com 2012-05-04 18:41:09 EDT --- A similar comment as in "StaxMate" review request:
Name: classmate Summary: ClassMate
It is extremely poor form to simply repeat the package name as the %summary. You can assume the %summary to be displayed next to the %name by [almost] all package tools one can imagine. For instance, Anaconda displays it below the package name.
At least try to come up with a "short and concise description", such as: Summary: Java introspection library
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=815060
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it 2012-05-05 07:47:43 EDT --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/classmate.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/classmate-0.5.4-2.fc16.src.rpm - fixed summary
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |861498
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |852330
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
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 #3 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: [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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package javadoc [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/goldmann/tmp/815060-classmate/licensecheck.txt [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 using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed
Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Test run failed
Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [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]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [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) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [c]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source1 (LICENSE-2.0.txt) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Java: [x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
===== 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. [-]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed
Rpmlint ------- Checking: classmate-0.5.4-2.fc18.noarch.rpm classmate-javadoc-0.5.4-2.fc18.noarch.rpm classmate-0.5.4-2.fc18.src.rpm classmate.src: W: invalid-url Source0: classmate-0.5.4.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint classmate-javadoc classmate classmate-javadoc.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- classmate-0.5.4-2.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java jpackage-utils
classmate-javadoc-0.5.4-2.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jpackage-utils
Provides -------- classmate-0.5.4-2.fc18.noarch.rpm:
classmate = 0.5.4-2.fc18 mvn(com.fasterxml:classmate) osgi(classmate) = 0.5.4
classmate-javadoc-0.5.4-2.fc18.noarch.rpm:
classmate-javadoc = 0.5.4-2.fc18
MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (Unknown) last change: Unknown Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/home/goldmann/git/FedoraReview/try-fedora-review -b 815060 -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4578170
Looks good, ACCEPTED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: classmate Short Description: Java introspection library Owners: gil Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: java-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- classmate-0.5.4-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/classmate-0.5.4-2.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- classmate-0.5.4-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/classmate-0.5.4-2.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- classmate-0.5.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=815060
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-11-13 04:01:01
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org