[Bug 1002703] New: Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
Bug ID: 1002703 Summary: Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet 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: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/juniversalchardet.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: juniversalchardet is a Java port of 'universalchardet', that is the encoding detector library of Mozilla. Fedora Account System Username: gil
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1002721
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1019650
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019650 [Bug 1019650] tika: Add parsers module
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|1002721 |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002721 [Bug 1002721] Review Request: tika - A content analysis toolkit
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |bjoern.esser@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |bjoern.esser@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- taken ;)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- Package one small issue. No blockers :)
#####
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated
Issues: ======= - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
---> please add them as BuildRequires during import.
===== 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]: 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: "MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "Unknown or generated". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1002703-juniversalchardet/licensecheck.txt
---> License-tag is fine. :)
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 40960 bytes in 2 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> missing `BuildRequires: jpackage-utils`. Can be fixed during import.
[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]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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]: 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) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct or update to latest guidelines [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [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]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} 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 juniversalchardet-javadoc
---> False positive. Documentation should have no Requires on main-pkg.
[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.
---> no testsuite available.
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm juniversalchardet-javadoc-1.0.3-1.fc21.noarch.rpm juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc21.src.rpm juniversalchardet.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) universalchardet -> universality juniversalchardet.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US universalchardet -> universality juniversalchardet.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) universalchardet -> universality juniversalchardet.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US universalchardet -> universality 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint juniversalchardet-javadoc juniversalchardet juniversalchardet.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) universalchardet -> universality juniversalchardet.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US universalchardet -> universality 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- juniversalchardet-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
juniversalchardet (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java javapackages-tools jpackage-utils
Provides -------- juniversalchardet-javadoc: juniversalchardet-javadoc
juniversalchardet: juniversalchardet mvn(com.googlecode.juniversalchardet:juniversalchardet)
Source checksums ---------------- http://juniversalchardet.googlecode.com/files/juniversalchardet-1.0.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3ef0e115548ca24c5a61945ba84078e2b8aa5eac5933c0af0f601fcc2be6e1ae CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ef0e115548ca24c5a61945ba84078e2b8aa5eac5933c0af0f601fcc2be6e1ae http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/com/googlecode/juniversalchardet/juniversalcha... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7846399b35c7cd642a9b3a000c3e2d62d04eb37a4547b6933cc8b18bcc2f086b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7846399b35c7cd642a9b3a000c3e2d62d04eb37a4547b6933cc8b18bcc2f086b
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1002703 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
#####
APPROVED!!!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- BuildRequires: jpackage-utils and Required: jpackage-utils is non needed because jpackage-utils (retired) was replaced by javapackages-tools
Thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: juniversalchardet Short Description: A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet Owners: gil Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: java-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.f | |c19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-10-28 23:36:25
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.f |juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.f |c19 |c20
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla