[Bug 894413] New: Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Bug ID: 894413 Summary: Review Request: davmail - DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Reporter: maci@satgnu.net
Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.1.0-2.fc18.src.rpm Description: DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange Fedora Account System Username: maci
Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4860100
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #1 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- *** Bug 894411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #2 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- Update:
* Fri Mar 1 2013 Simone Sclavi darkhado@gmai.com 4.2.0-1 - Updated to 4.2.0 release
* Fri Feb 8 2013 Simone Sclavi darkhado@gmai.com 4.1.0-3 - Fixed summary - Fixed dependencies for OBS building
SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5072316
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
David Xie david.scriptfan@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |david.scriptfan@gmail.com
--- Comment #3 from David Xie david.scriptfan@gmail.com --- 1. There's no Requires section. Should have at least java and jpackage-utils.
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |cickumqt@gmail.com
--- Comment #4 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- Invalid changelog section;
Invalid %define, should use %global;
davmail should be replaced by %{name} as many as possible;
Maybe install with -p option to preserve the timestamp;
No need to write "#OBS failes to resolve xml-common-apis #when building for Fedora 18". OBS is not Fedora Product;
Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #5 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- Update:
* Fri Apr 26 2013 Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net - 4.2.0-2 - removed OBS comment - use install -p - use global instead of define macro - replaced davmail with name macro - add missing requires
SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.2.0-2.fc18.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5305206
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #6 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- Update:
* Wed May 22 2013 Simone Sclavi darkhado@gmail.com 4.3.0-1 - Updated to 4.3.0 release - Fixed 'class-path-in-manifest' rpmlint issue
SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5471776
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #7 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- Icon cache should be updated:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache
BTW, you have a gmai typo in some of your changelogs.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #8 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- Update:
* Wed Jun 05 2013 Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net - 4.3.0-2 - fix gmail typo in changelog - regenerate icon cache
SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.0-2.fc19.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5473923
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #9 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- Update:
* Thu Jun 06 2013 Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net - 4.3.1-1 - update to 4.3.1
SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5474770
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #10 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- Update
* Mon Jun 10 2013 Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net - 4.3.2-1 - update to 4.3.2
SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5486365
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Björn 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 #11 from Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- On my TODO for this week. Will have to setup some vm-infrastructure for exhaustive testing of this before.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #12 from Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- A first quick look at it reveals:
bundled .jar-files (shipped in Sources0 and redistributed in rpm), see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_...
tarball ships:
activation-1.1.1.jar ant-deb-0.0.1.jar commons-codec-1.3.jar commons-collections-3.1.jar commons-httpclient-3.1.jar commons-logging-1.0.4.jar htmlcleaner-2.2.jar jackrabbit-webdav-2.4.3.jar jarbundler-2.1.0.jar jcharset-1.3.jar jcifs-1.3.14.jar jdom-1.0.jar jsmoothgen-ant-0.9.9-7-mgu2.jar junit-3.8.1.jar libgrowl-0.2.jar libgrowl.jnilib log4j-1.2.16.jar mail-1.4.3.jar nsisant-1.2.jar redline-1.1.9.jar servlet-api.jar slf4j-api-1.3.1.jar slf4j-log4j12-1.3.1.jar stax2-api-3.1.1.jar stax-api-1.0.1.jar swt-3.7-gtk-linux-x86_64.jar swt-3.7-gtk-linux-x86.jar swt-3.7-win32-x86_64.jar swt-3.7-win32-x86.jar winrun4j-0.4.4.jar woodstox-core-asl-4.1.2.jar xercesImpl-2.8.1.jar
These are redisted with rpm:
activation-1.1.1.jar commons-codec-1.3.jar commons-collections-3.1.jar commons-httpclient-3.1.jar commons-logging-1.0.4.jar htmlcleaner-2.2.jar jackrabbit-webdav-2.4.3.jar jcharset-1.3.jar jcifs-1.3.14.jar jdom-1.0.jar junit-3.8.1.jar libgrowl-0.2.jar libgrowl.jnilib log4j-1.2.16.jar mail-1.4.3.jar slf4j-api-1.3.1.jar slf4j-log4j12-1.3.1.jar stax2-api-3.1.1.jar stax-api-1.0.1.jar swt-3.7-gtk-linux-x86_64.jar winrun4j-0.4.4.jar woodstox-core-asl-4.1.2.jar xercesImpl-2.8.1.jar
* checking for activation No matches found
* checking for commons-codec apache-commons-codec-1.8-1.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-codec.jar
* checking for commons-collections apache-commons-collections-3.2.1-16.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-collections.jar
* checking for commons-httpclient 1:jakarta-commons-httpclient-3.1-13.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-httpclient.jar Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-httpclient3.jar
* checking for commons-logging apache-commons-logging-1.1.2-2.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-logging-adapters.jar Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-logging-api.jar Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-logging.jar
* checking for htmlcleaner No matches found
* checking for jackrabbit-webdav jackrabbit-webdav-2.4.2-6.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/jackrabbit-webdav.jar
* checking for jcharset No matches found
* checking for jcifs jcifs-1.3.17-7.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/jcifs.jar
* checking for jdom jdom-1.1.3-4.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/jdom.jar
* checking for junit junit-4.11-1.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/junit.jar Filename : /usr/share/java/junit4.jar
* checking for libgrowl No matches found
* checking for log4j log4j-1.2.17-10.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/log4j.jar
* checking for mail No matches found
* checking for slf4j-api No matches found
* checking for slf4j-log4j12 No matches found
* checking for stax-api No matches found
* checking for stax2-api stax2-api-3.1.1-6.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/stax2-api.jar
* checking for swt-gtk (jni-lib) No matches found
* checking for winrun4j No matches found (is this really needed on Linux???)
* checking for woodstox-core-asl woodstox-core-4.1.2-5.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/woodstox-core-asl.jar
* checking for xercesImpl No matches found
Check which are actually needed BuildRequires, if not already pkged for Fedora package them from original upstream source, and build/link (eg. ln -s) against those, please.
I'll start next review on updated pkg, then. If you need any help feel free to PM me directly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #13 from Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- These are also in Fedora, already:
* checking for mail javamail
* checking for slf4j-api, slf4j-log4j12 slf4j
* checking for stax-api bea-stax-api
* checking for swt-gtk (jni-lib) eclipse-swt
Not yet pkged or found in Fedora:
* activation * jcharset * libgrowl * xercesImpl
Not needed:
* winrun4j (tool enhancing javaw)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #14 from Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- You can find the needed other Sources here:
* activation (JavaBeans Application Framework) http://www.gnu.org/software/classpathx/jaf/jaf.html
* jcharset http://www.freeutils.net/source/jcharset/
* libgrowl http://sourceforge.net/projects/libgrowl/
* xercesImpl http://xerces.apache.org/mirrors.cgi
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |973084
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com
--- Comment #15 from Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com --- Without being aware of this rewiew request, I have been working on the original spec file, distributed in the davmail project: http://davmail.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/davmail/trunk/src/contribs/rpm/SPE... in order to remove the distributed jars. There are also some features included in the original spec and missing in bug #894413: - running davmail as an unpriviledged-user service - logging + logrotate The latest effort spec for fedora is available at https://svn.fysik.dtu.dk/projects/rpmbuild/trunk/SPECS/davmail-src.spec http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/marcindulak/Fedora_18/src/da... Please note that davmail requires several patches, already worked-out by debian community, in order to build without redistributing jars (e.g. patch for build.xml: https://svn.fysik.dtu.dk/projects/rpmbuild/trunk/SOURCES/davmail-0004-Set-cl...). Another patch removes dependency on libgrowl, which seems to be needed only for OSX. It would be nice if we converge our efforts, how could we organize that?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mizdebsk@redhat.com
--- Comment #16 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- (In reply to Björn Esser from comment #13)
Not yet pkged or found in Fedora:
- activation
It's part of JDK now.
- xercesImpl
Provided by package xerces-j2. Also part of nwer JDKs (JAXB).
In Fedora 19+, to replace binary JARs with symlinks to system libraries I recommend running xmvn-subst (part of xmvn package). See: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2013-May/004812.html
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |puntogil@libero.it
--- Comment #17 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- hi see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#JAR_file_installation The Java guidelines require arch-independent JARs to go under %_javadir, not %_datadir. Typically this is resolved by using symlinks in %_datadir (as is already done for dependency jars outside the package) regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |977000
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #18 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Björn Esser from comment #14)
You can find the needed other Sources here:
i think this is the right one http://growl.info, but, maybe, is required only for OSX. https://github.com/baohaojun/davmail regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #19 from Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #16)
- activation
It's part of JDK now.
- xercesImpl
Provided by package xerces-j2. Also part of nwer JDKs (JAXB).
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #18)
- libgrowl
i think this is the right one http://growl.info, but, maybe, is required only for OSX. https://github.com/baohaojun/davmail
So we have htmlcleaner avail in RAWHIDE and F19, now. Gil has just packaged jcharset and waiting for review.
So we can start making new progress here, I think.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #20 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- there seems to be an "srconly" tarball which does not bundle any libraries. maybe we can work from there.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #21 from Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com --- (In reply to Marcel Wysocki from comment #20)
there seems to be an "srconly" tarball which does not bundle any libraries. maybe we can work from there.
See bug #894413 comment #15 - i have a spec based on scronly working, it just requires polishing. If nobody objects i will create a patch that is based on bug #894413 as orig and incorporates my changes. I have also a general comment for packaging: we should profit from debian peoples work and original spec distributed upstream by davmail (i based on it) and not try make one from scratch.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #22 from Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- (In reply to Marcel Wysocki from comment #20)
there seems to be an "srconly" tarball which does not bundle any libraries. maybe we can work from there.
Seems to be a good idea.
(In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #21)
See bug #894413 comment #15 - i have a spec based on scronly working, it just requires polishing.
Another good point to start further process.
If nobody objects i will create a patch that is based on bug #894413 as orig and incorporates my changes.
OK, so just attach your patch to this bug, so we can start discussing about.
I have also a general comment for packaging: we should profit from debian peoples work and original spec distributed upstream by davmail (i based on it) and not try make one from scratch.
There are some nice patches from debian avail, esp. unbundling libs.jar and removing unneeded libgrowl. I think starting a three-way-merge from existing spec, Marcin's spec and upstream's spec will give us some solid base to build-up from here.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #23 from Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com ---
Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - No %config files under /usr. Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
----> I see this is how mylvmbackup is packaged upstream
https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mylvmbackup&project=home... , but we can't use %config under /usr in Fedora. A solution could be to use, e.g.: hooksdir=/etc/mylvmbackup/hooks in /etc/mylvmbackup.conf and create that dir in spec. I guess one should communicate this choice upstream.
Another comment: the upstream build.opensuse.org and the current spec share some similarities - if you based on upstream - include this information in changelog.
===== 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 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 [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
----> /etc/mylvmbackup.conf refers to /etc/my.cnf, and this is provided by (let's drop el5 - Requires: mysql): el6, f17-f18: Requires: mysql-libs f19-: Requires: mariadb-libs
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package complies to the 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". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/977646-mylvmbackup/licensecheck.txt
----> false positive due to /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm files
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [x]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
----> see "Package requires other packages for directories it uses." above
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 5 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
----> see "No %config files under /usr." above
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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]: 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 [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).
Perl: [ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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. [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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: mylvmbackup-0.14-1.fc20.noarch.rpm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/logerr.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/backupfailure.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/preflush.pm
----> see "No %config files under /usr." above
mylvmbackup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mylvmbackup.conf 0600L
----> This is due to /etc/mylvmbackup.conf potentially containing sensitive information (mysql password, ...). There is a "--password=string" option to mylvmbackup, but in case someone writes password into /etc/mylvmbackup.conf it's safer to keep the permission as they are now (0600).
mylvmbackup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/mylvmbackup
----> incorrect postal address of FSF "In all cases, upstream should be informed about this. This is the only requirement with respect to this error."
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address Please write to https://launchpad.net/~mylvmbackup-discuss or https://bugs.launchpad.net/mylvmbackup
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mylvmbackup mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/logerr.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/backupfailure.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/preflush.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mylvmbackup.conf 0600L mylvmbackup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/mylvmbackup
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- mylvmbackup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(mylvmbackup) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3) perl(Date::Format) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(strict)
Provides -------- mylvmbackup: config(mylvmbackup) mylvmbackup perl(backupfailure) perl(logerr) perl(preflush)
Source checksums ---------------- http://www.lenzg.net/mylvmbackup/mylvmbackup-0.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a979082f525f5b0b44bd09169938f2b5d8394fc403fc8b6a6e8b809d7c1a5724 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a979082f525f5b0b44bd09169938f2b5d8394fc403fc8b6a6e8b809d7c1a5724
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 977646
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #24 from Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com --- I'm sorry - discard it - wrong bug!
I(In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #23)
Package Review
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
No %config files under /usr. Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files
----> I see this is how mylvmbackup is packaged upstream
https://build.opensuse.org/package/ show?package=mylvmbackup&project=home%3ALenzGr , but we can't use %config under /usr in Fedora. A solution could be to use, e.g.: hooksdir=/etc/mylvmbackup/hooks in /etc/mylvmbackup.conf and create that dir in spec. I guess one should communicate this choice upstream.
Another comment: the upstream build.opensuse.org and the current spec share some similarities - if you based on upstream - include this information in changelog.===== 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 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 [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
----> /etc/mylvmbackup.conf refers to /etc/my.cnf, and this is provided by (let's drop el5 - Requires: mysql): el6, f17-f18: Requires: mysql-libs f19-: Requires: mariadb-libs
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package complies to the 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". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/977646-mylvmbackup/licensecheck.txt
----> false positive due to /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm files
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [x]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
----> see "Package requires other packages for directories it uses." above
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 5 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
----> see "No %config files under /usr." above
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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]: 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 [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).
Perl: [ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:.
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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. [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.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: mylvmbackup-0.14-1.fc20.noarch.rpm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/logerr.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/backupfailure.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/preflush.pm
----> see "No %config files under /usr." above
mylvmbackup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mylvmbackup.conf 0600L
----> This is due to /etc/mylvmbackup.conf potentially containing sensitive information (mysql password, ...). There is a "--password=string" option to mylvmbackup, but in case someone writes password into /etc/mylvmbackup.conf it's safer to keep the permission as they are now (0600).
mylvmbackup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/mylvmbackup
----> incorrect postal address of FSF "In all cases, upstream should be informed about this. This is the only requirement with respect to this error."
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address Please write to https://launchpad.net/~mylvmbackup-discuss or https://bugs.launchpad.net/mylvmbackup
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint mylvmbackup mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/logerr.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/backupfailure.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/preflush.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mylvmbackup.conf 0600L mylvmbackup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/mylvmbackup
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
mylvmbackup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(mylvmbackup) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3) perl(Date::Format) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(strict)
Provides
mylvmbackup: config(mylvmbackup) mylvmbackup perl(backupfailure) perl(logerr) perl(preflush)
Source checksums
http://www.lenzg.net/mylvmbackup/mylvmbackup-0.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a979082f525f5b0b44bd09169938f2b5d8394fc403fc8b6a6e8b809d7c1a5724 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a979082f525f5b0b44bd09169938f2b5d8394fc403fc8b6a6e8b809d7c1a5724
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 977646
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #25 from Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com --- Hi,
here is the patch + SOURCES promised in bug #894413 c#21 http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/davmail.spec.v02a.... http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/davmail.ant.proper... http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/0001-no-windows-se... http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/0002-no-osx-tray.p... http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/0003-base64-enc-de... http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/0004-Set-classpath...
I don't include logging/logrotate/init(should switch to systemd), let's do one step at a time. BR may need to be trimmed/fixed - i'm not familiar enough with java. I have noticed that htmlcleaner is under /usr/share/java/htmlcleaner/htmlcleaner.jar and not as usually under /usr/share/java - is it a new convention of %mvn_install?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #26 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #25)
I have noticed that htmlcleaner is under /usr/share/java/htmlcleaner/htmlcleaner.jar and not as usually under /usr/share/java - is it a new convention of %mvn_install?
you can used in htmlcleaner spec file
%mvn_file :%{name} %{name}
%build
%mvn_build
%install %mvn_install
JAR will be in %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
or
%mvn_file :%{name} %{name}/%{name} %{name}
%mvn_install will then install JAR file for artifact "any_groupId:%{name}" to the location %{_javadir}/%{name}/%{name}.jar and it will also create symlink %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Bug 894413 depends on bug 977000, which changed state.
Bug 977000 Summary: Review Request: jcharset - Java Charset package https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=977000
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #27 from Björn Esser bjoern.esser@gmail.com --- Any new progress here?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Bug 894413 depends on bug 973084, which changed state.
Bug 973084 Summary: Review Request: htmlcleaner - HtmlCleaner is open-source HTML parser written in Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973084
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |maci@satgnu.net Flags| |needinfo?(maci@satgnu.net)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(maci@satgnu.net) |
--- Comment #28 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- sorry, i have been quite busy with real life recently.
i will try to incorperate patches from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413#c25 now
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #29 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- Update:
Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.3-3.fc19.src.rpm
Changelog:
* Fri Jul 26 2013 maci maci@satgnu.net - 4.3.3-3 - fix some dependencies
* Thu Jun 27 2013 Marcin Dulak Marcin.Dulak@gmail.com 4.3.3-2 * bug #894413 c#21 : partly merge (no service or logging for now)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #30 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Created attachment 781180 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=781180&action=edit Italian localization files
This files add Italian support for davmail please, copy these file in src/java thanks regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #31 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Created attachment 781181 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=781181&action=edit Italian localization files 2
Italian localization files 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #781181|0 |1 is obsolete| |
--- Comment #32 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Created attachment 781198 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=781198&action=edit Italian localization files 2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Attachment #781198|0 |1 is obsolete| |
--- Comment #33 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Created attachment 781212 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=781212&action=edit Italian localization files 2
sorry upload the old one
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Mickaël Guessant mguessan@free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |mguessan@free.fr
--- Comment #34 from Mickaël Guessant mguessan@free.fr --- @gil: localization file merged in upstream, thanks for your contribution
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #35 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- hi thanks! the localization file are 2... i see in the new version there is only one (davmailmessages_it.properties), have you sent also imapflags_it.properties ? thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Mickaël Guessant mguessan@free.fr changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org |
--- Comment #36 from Mickaël Guessant mguessan@free.fr --- Indeed, second file merged
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #47 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- Update:
* Tue Nov 26 2013 maci maci@satgnu.net - 4.4.0-1 - update to 4.4.0
Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.github.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SRPMS/davmail-4.4.0-1.fc19.src....
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|cickumqt@gmail.com |
--- Comment #48 from Christopher Meng cickumqt@gmail.com --- Just a suggestion:
Could you use Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net all the time instead of mixed maci?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #49 from Frederik Holden frederik+fedora@frh.no --- Any update on this?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #50 from Marcel Wysocki maci@satgnu.net --- anyone else want to take this over ? Havent had time recently to look into this.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #51 from Kevin R. Page redhat-bugzilla@krp.org.uk --- Just an enquiry as to whether there's any further progress? (and to signal enthusiasm for this to become a Fedora package -- thank you for the effort that's got it this far)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
MartinG martin@eightflat.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |martin@eightflat.org
--- Comment #52 from MartinG martin@eightflat.org --- Let me add my enthusiasm too, as two more months have passed.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |projects.rg@smart.ms
--- Comment #53 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Please build also for EPEL7.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #54 from Mickaël Guessant mguessan@free.fr --- Well, I managed to build on Centos 7, see: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:mguessan:branches:home:achimh:b...
Note that this is still based on source package *with libs*, not source only.
Debian package maintainers managed to build a package without binary libraries input: https://packages.debian.org/stretch/davmail
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo?(maci@satgnu.net)
--- Comment #55 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- Ping. Another friendly reminder.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413
--- Comment #56 from Mickaël Guessant mguessan@free.fr --- Latest release 5.0.0 builds on EPEL 6/7 and fedora, see: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mguessan/davmail/build/827335/
All files are merged in trunk, see: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:mguessan:davmail/davmail
This is still a spec file based on source package with included libs. To build from source only package, we would need to find all dependencies: https://packages.debian.org/sid/davmail
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla