[Bug 1230949] New: Review Request: hid4java - A cross-platform Java Native Access (JNA) wrapper for the signal11/hidapi library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
Bug ID: 1230949 Summary: Review Request: hid4java - A cross-platform Java Native Access (JNA) wrapper for the signal11/hidapi library Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hegjon@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/hegjon/hid4java-rpm/master/hid4java.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/hegjon/hid4java-rpm/raw/master/hid4java-0.3.1-1.fc22.src.... Description: The hid4java project supports USB HID devices through a common API which is provided here under the MIT license. The API is very simple but provides great flexibility such as support for feature reports and blocking reads with timeouts. Attach/detach events are provided to allow applications to respond instantly to device availability. Fedora Account System Username: jonny Koji build link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10024584
I need a sponsor since this is my first package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hardware|All |noarch Version|rawhide |22 Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |puntogil@libero.it
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec file seem ok, with an exception: Requires: java-headless >= 1:1.6.0 should be removed
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Also should remove Group: System Environment/Libraries
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Thanks for your feedback, I have removed Group: System Environment/Libraries and Requires: java-headless >= 1:1.6.0 and pushed thes changes
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Removed %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} from the spec file since this was mentioned in the rescu ticket
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
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=1230949
--- Comment #5 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Upstream have been informed that I have started to package for Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |akurtako@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |akurtako@redhat.com
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- I'll take this one. Jonny, you still need sponsor, right? Gil, thanks for the preliminary review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mizdebsk@redhat.com
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #8 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/HidDevice.java hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/HidException.java hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/HidManager.java hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/HidServices.java hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/HidServicesListener.java hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/event/HidServicesEvent.java hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/event/HidServicesListenerList.java hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/jna/HidApi.java hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/jna/HidApiLibrary.java hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/jna/HidDeviceInfoStructure.java hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/jna/HidDeviceStructure.java hid4java-0.3.1/src/main/java/org/hid4java/jna/WideStringBuffer.java
Please contact upstream to clarify licensing. Best if they put proper license header and release new version.
[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. [-]: 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. [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 2 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 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in hid4java-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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]: 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: [x]: 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: hid4java-0.3.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm hid4java-javadoc-0.3.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm hid4java-0.3.1-1.fc23.src.rpm hid4java.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hidapi -> aphid hid4java.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) hidapi -> aphid 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- hid4java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils libhidapi-libusb.so.0 mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna)
hid4java-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
Provides -------- hid4java: hid4java mvn(org.hid4java:hid4java) mvn(org.hid4java:hid4java:pom:)
hid4java-javadoc: hid4java-javadoc
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/gary-rowe/hid4java/archive/0.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4f67d781978dbef3276bd89f8ccaa23950f6f95440371cdde1f154cae92b7302 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4f67d781978dbef3276bd89f8ccaa23950f6f95440371cdde1f154cae92b7302
Overall package is quite good but the unclear upstream licensing have to be clarified first.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #9 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Great, I will contact upstream and ask them to include a license header in the source files
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #10 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Created a ticket upstream for the license header: https://github.com/gary-rowe/hid4java/issues/25
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #11 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- License header fixed by upstream in https://github.com/gary-rowe/hid4java/commit/aa188231cc912041125816e6343be5d....
Waiting for the next release.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- I would be fine with using this snapshot as Source0 if you want to see it in sooner.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #13 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Great, bumped to a snapshot of what is going to be version 0.4.0.
Spec URL: https://github.com/hegjon/hid4java-rpm/raw/master/hid4java.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/hegjon/hid4java-rpm/raw/master/hid4java-0.4.0-0.1.fc22.sr...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #14 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- Pre release Release tag should be 0.1.git%{short_sha}.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #15 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Thanks, I tried to learn more about the naming guidelines at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Snapshot_packages
Should I also include the date? Like 0.1.20150726git1e9ef80
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #16 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- No, just 0.1.git1e9ef80
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #17 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Included the short shasum in Release tag and changed %define to %global (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/global_preferred_over_define)
Spec URL: https://github.com/hegjon/hid4java-rpm/raw/master/hid4java.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/hegjon/hid4java-rpm/raw/master/hid4java-0.4.0-0.1.gitb010...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #18 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- Thanks for the prompt fixes. Approved.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #19 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- What is your FAS id so I can sponsor you? hegjon ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #20 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- Ah, found it https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Jonny
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR), | |652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
--- Comment #21 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com --- Sponsored now. Please request scm as described at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_SCM_admin_requests
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #22 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Yay, thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #23 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: hid4java Short Description: A cross-platform Java Native Access (JNA) wrapper for the signal11/hidapi library Upstream URL: http://github.com/gary-rowe/hid4java Owners: jonny Branches: f23
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #24 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
--- Comment #25 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- jerboaa's scratch build of java-1.8.0-openjdk?#d28765c33d068af9ff432a92443b93beeef88a22 for git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/java-1.8.0-openjdk?#d28765c33d068af9ff432a92443b93beeef88a22 and rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12181621
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |CURRENTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-01-10 07:11:13
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla