https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880735
Bug ID: 1880735 Summary: Review Request: jakarta-mail - Jakarta Mail API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: decathorpe@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/jakarta-mail.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/jakarta-mail-1.6.5-1.fc32.src.r...
Description: The Jakarta Mail API provides a platform-independent and protocol-independent framework to build mail and messaging applications.
Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe
koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51823881
================================================================================
NOTE: This is a review request for renaming javamail to jakarta-mail to follow the change in upstream for this project (java.net -> eclipse-ee4j/mail). The Java EE packages are getting consolidated in the "jakarta-*" namespace, since the package names / import paths are also slowly getting migrated from the "javax.*" to the "jakarta.*" namespace as part of the standardization process for Jakarta EE 9.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880735
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1880636
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880636 [Bug 1880636] Review Request: jmc module rpms
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880735
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |zebob.m@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |zebob.m@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 zebob.m@gmail.com --- - Update the package to 2.0.0
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License 2.0", "Eclipse Public License 2.0", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 67 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/jakarta-mail/review- jakarta-mail/licensecheck.txt [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/java/javamail(javamail), /usr/share/java/javax.mail(javamail), /usr/share/maven- poms/javamail(javamail) [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 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. [-]: 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 (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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
===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: jakarta-mail-1.6.5-1.fc34.noarch.rpm jakarta-mail-1.6.5-1.fc34.src.rpm jakarta-mail.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided javamail-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880735
--- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Thanks for the review!
The 2.0.0 update is blocked for now, because it needs to be coordinated with other Jakarta EE 9 updates.
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/30254
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880735
--- Comment #3 from Gwyn Ciesla gwync@protonmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jakarta-mail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880735
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |jakarta-mail-1.6.5-1.fc34 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-11-06 10:50:25
--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1638944 Thanks!
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com