[Bug 1228203] New: Review Request: springframework-data-redis - Provides support to increase developer productivity in Java when using Redis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
Bug ID: 1228203 Summary: Review Request: springframework-data-redis - Provides support to increase developer productivity in Java when using Redis 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: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-data-redis.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Spring Data Redis, part of the larger Spring Data family, provides easy configuration and access to Redis from Spring applications. It offers both low-level and high-level abstractions for interacting with the store, freeing the user from infrastructural concerns.
Fedora Account System Username: gil
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1228162, 1228146, 1228169, | |1228172
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228146 [Bug 1228146] Review Request: lettuce - Scalable Java Redis client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228162 [Bug 1228162] Review Request: redis-protocol - Java client and server implementation of Redis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228169 [Bug 1228169] Review Request: apache-commons-pool2 - Apache Commons Object Pooling Library 2.x series https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228172 [Bug 1228172] Review Request: jedis - A redis Java client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1215061
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215061 [Bug 1215061] springframework-batch-2.2.7.RELEASE is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
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=1228203 Bug 1228203 depends on bug 1228162, which changed state.
Bug 1228162 Summary: Review Request: redis-protocol - Java client and server implementation of Redis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228162
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1236511
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236511 [Bug 1236511] Review Request: jredis - Java Client and Connectors for Redis
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203 Bug 1228203 depends on bug 1228146, which changed state.
Bug 1228146 Summary: Review Request: lettuce - Scalable Java Redis client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228146
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-data-redis.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-1.fc22.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203 Bug 1228203 depends on bug 1228172, which changed state.
Bug 1228172 Summary: Review Request: jedis - A redis Java client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228172
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203 Bug 1228203 depends on bug 1228169, which changed state.
Bug 1228169 Summary: Review Request: apache-commons-pool2 - Apache Commons Object Pooling Library 2.x series https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228169
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-data-redis.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-1.fc22.src.rpm
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10514591
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203 Bug 1228203 depends on bug 1236511, which changed state.
Bug 1236511 Summary: Review Request: jredis - Java Client and Connectors for Redis https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1236511
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- I will take this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
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=1228203
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Issues, in no particular order - There is one bundled source file:
src/main/java/org/springframework/data/redis/connection/util/Base64.java
It carries a BSD license. It probably isn't packaged anywhere, since it is a single class file, so I'm not concerned about the bundling. I don't know what that does to the license field, though. If ASL 2.0 subsumes BSD, then the current license tag is fine. Otherwise, it needs to be "ASL 2.0 and BSD", with a comment explaining the license breakdown.
- The final requires include "mvn(junit:junit)". Is that correct, or is that an unintended side effect of adding test deps in %prep?
- Under the Java section is a question about whether the upstream build method is used. That doesn't appear to be the case here. The build is being done with maven, but it looks like gradle is the upstream build tool of choice. I'm ignorant about such matters, though. Does this matter?
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 20 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/1228203-springframework-data-redis/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [!]: 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. [x]: 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: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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
Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. The spec file contains justification for this. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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. But maven runs the tests at build time, so this doesn't matter. [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]: 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.
Java: [!]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
===== 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: springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-1.fc24.noarch.rpm springframework-data-redis-javadoc-1.3.5-1.fc24.noarch.rpm springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-1.fc24.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- springframework-data-redis (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(junit:junit) mvn(net.sf.cglib:cglib) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) mvn(org.springframework:spring-aop) mvn(org.springframework:spring-context) mvn(org.springframework:spring-context-support) mvn(org.springframework:spring-core) mvn(org.springframework:spring-tx)
springframework-data-redis-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
Provides -------- springframework-data-redis: mvn(org.springframework.data:spring-data-redis) mvn(org.springframework.data:spring-data-redis:pom:) osgi(org.springframework.data.redis) springframework-data-redis
springframework-data-redis-javadoc: springframework-data-redis-javadoc
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-data-redis/archive/v1.3.5.RELEASE.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8ad11aa4b0f391ac9bb05bbc3b19e936d45230cd2429567b6a00a56ec00642b4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8ad11aa4b0f391ac9bb05bbc3b19e936d45230cd2429567b6a00a56ec00642b4 http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/data/spring-data-redis/1... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5361fe32bedaa36579fd0603850d3c5713f7e418eab907383e060b9c5e29d7c2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5361fe32bedaa36579fd0603850d3c5713f7e418eab907383e060b9c5e29d7c2
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1228203 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #4)
Issues, in no particular order
There is one bundled source file:
src/main/java/org/springframework/data/redis/connection/util/Base64.java
Removed. Use jvm Base64
It carries a BSD license. It probably isn't packaged anywhere, since it is a single class file, so I'm not concerned about the bundling. I don't know what that does to the license field, though. If ASL 2.0 subsumes BSD, then the current license tag is fine. Otherwise, it needs to be "ASL 2.0 and BSD", with a comment explaining the license breakdown.
Only for information net.iharder:base64 is under Public Domain license
- The final requires include "mvn(junit:junit)". Is that correct, or is that an unintended side effect of adding test deps in %prep?
Fixed
- Under the Java section is a question about whether the upstream build
method is used. That doesn't appear to be the case here. The build is being done with maven, but it looks like gradle is the upstream build tool of choice. I'm ignorant about such matters, though. Does this matter?
No, is irrilevant
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-data-redis.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-2.fc22.src.rpm
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10874153
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #4)
with maven, but it looks like gradle is the upstream build tool of choice. I'm ignorant about such matters, though. Does this matter?
No, is irrilevant
sorry, is insignificant ...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6)
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
No, is irrilevant
sorry, is insignificant ...
:-) That's fine, then. Just wanted to check. I see no other issues, so this package is APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Thanks for the review!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: springframework-data-redis Short Description: Provides support to increase developer productivity in Java when using Redis Upstream URL: http://projects.spring.io/spring-data-redis/ Owners: gil Branches: f22 f23 InitialCC: java-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14589
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203 Bug 1228203 depends on bug 1228172, which changed state.
Bug 1228172 Summary: Review Request: jedis - A redis Java client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228172
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|RAWHIDE |---
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update springframework-data-redis'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14589
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203 Bug 1228203 depends on bug 1228172, which changed state.
Bug 1228172 Summary: Review Request: jedis - A redis Java client https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228172
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |1.3.5-2.fc23 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2015-09-18 15:00:20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-16190
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ON_QA Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords| |Reopened
--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update springframework-data-redis' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-16190
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- springframework-data-redis-1.3.5-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228203
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed|2015-09-18 15:00:20 |2015-10-01 14:50:04
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla