https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
Bug ID: 862531 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: jbossws-parent - JBossWS Parent 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/jbossws-parent/1.0.10-1/jbos... SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbossws-parent/1.0.10-1/jbos... Description: This package contains the JBossWS Parent Fedora Account System Username: goldmann
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4554295
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |sochotni@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |sochotni@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com --- I'll review this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
--- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== ISSUES ===== [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
Requires on Maven can be considered a problem. Other jboss packages will likely have "Requires: jbossws-parent" and thus they would pull in Maven even when installing JBossAS.
[!]: Latest version is packaged. 1.1.0.GA is out, perhaps you missed it?
Update to 1.1.0.GA (or explain why older version needs to be packaged) and probably get rid of Maven requires?
===== 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. [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. [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. [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. [-]: Package is not relocatable.
[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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present [-]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [-]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call [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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: jbossws-parent-1.0.10-1.fc19.noarch.rpm jbossws-parent-1.0.10-1.fc19.src.rpm jbossws-parent.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossws HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jbossws-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation jbossws-parent.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossws HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jbossws-parent jbossws-parent.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/jbossws HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jbossws-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- jbossws-parent-1.0.10-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java jpackage-utils maven
Provides -------- jbossws-parent-1.0.10-1.fc19.noarch.rpm:
jbossws-parent = 1.0.10-1.fc19 mvn(org.jboss.ws:jbossws-parent) = 1.0.10.GA
MD5-sum check ------------- https://repository.jboss.org/nexus/service/local/repositories/releases/conte... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 75c293e1b9c506a9ebe59de679dffdacb94ef6238289cfbb48c6534be5d54d2a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 75c293e1b9c506a9ebe59de679dffdacb94ef6238289cfbb48c6534be5d54d2a
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.0 (27e7615) last change: 2012-09-20 Buildroot used: fedora-raw-x86_64 Command line :/home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/try-fedora-review -b 862531
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
--- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com --- Fixed both issues, upgraded to 1.1.0.GA and removed maven R.
Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbossws-parent/1.1.0-1/jboss... SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbossws-parent/1.1.0-1/jboss...
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4570159
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky sochotni@redhat.com --- Looks fine to me, APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com --- Thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jbossws-parent Short Description: JBossWS Parent Owners: goldmann Branches: f17 f18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
--- Comment #6 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jbossws-parent-1.1.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbossws-parent-1.1.0-1.fc18
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jbossws-parent-1.1.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbossws-parent-1.1.0-1.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jbossws-parent-1.1.0-1.fc18, jbossws-api-1.0.0-3.fc18, jbossws-spi-2.0.3-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=862531
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2012-11-13 04:09:37
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla