Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: stax2-api - Experimental API extending basic StAX implementation
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737969
Summary: Review Request: stax2-api - Experimental API extending basic StAX implementation Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: jcapik@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Classification: Fedora Story Points: --- Type: ---
Spec URL: http://jcapik.fedorapeople.org/files/stax2-api/stax2-api.spec SRPM URL: http://jcapik.fedorapeople.org/files/stax2-api/stax2-api-3.1.1-1.fc17.src.rp... Description: StAX2 is an experimental API that is intended to extend basic StAX specifications in a way that allows implementations to experiment with features before they end up in the actual StAX specification (if they do). As such, it is intended to be freely implementable by all StAX implementations same way as StAX, but without going through a formal JCP process.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737969
Jaromír Cápík jcapik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183(FE-JAVASIG)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737969
Jaromír Cápík jcapik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |738034
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737969
Roland Grunberg rgrunber@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rgrunber@redhat.com Flag| |fedora-review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737969
--- Comment #1 from Roland Grunberg rgrunber@redhat.com 2011-09-21 11:01:41 EDT --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [X] Rpmlint output: 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [X] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [X] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [X] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [X] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [X] Buildroot definition is not present [X] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [X] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: BSD [-] 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. [-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [X] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [X] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : c8acec319425e43d32ca5d64ab7a1a38 MD5SUM upstream package: c8acec319425e43d32ca5d64ab7a1a38 [X] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [X] Package must own all directories that it creates. [X] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [X] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [X] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason [X] Permissions on files are set properly. [X] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [X] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [X] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [X] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [X] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [X] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [X] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [X] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [-] Package uses %global not %define [-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [X] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [X] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [X] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [X] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap
=== Maven === [X] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms [-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment [X] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment [X] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [X] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
=== Other suggestions === [X] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [X] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [X] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [X] Latest version is packaged. [X] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: fedora-rawhide-i386 for mock build, fedora-15-i386 for mvn build.
=== Issues === 1. The license is listed as BSD. The source references the license as being in its own license file. However, no such file is present within the source package upstream. There is however a license file in upstream's built jar which matches. I guess this is an issue upstream needs to fix?
Everything else looks fine.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737969
--- Comment #2 from Jaromír Cápík jcapik@redhat.com 2011-09-21 13:25:08 EDT --- Hello Roland.
Yes ... I'll submit that in the upstream tracker once the maven-plugin-bundle is up to date. Since this package blocks the update, we need to introduce it asap and then ask upstream for a solution. Since this always lasts too long, we can't wait for upstream to fix this.
So. If You have no other objections, I'm gonna ask for the git repo.
Thanks. Jaromir.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737969
Roland Grunberg rgrunber@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Roland Grunberg rgrunber@redhat.com 2011-09-21 13:39:36 EDT --- Alright, setting as approved.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737969
Jaromír Cápík jcapik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Jaromír Cápík jcapik@redhat.com 2011-09-22 07:15:39 EDT --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: stax2-api Short Description: Experimental API extending basic StAX implementation Owners: jcapik Branches: f15 f16 InitialCC: java-sig
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737969
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limb@jcomserv.net 2011-09-24 11:51:39 EDT --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737969
Jaromír Cápík jcapik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2011-09-26 13:45:02
--- Comment #6 from Jaromír Cápík jcapik@redhat.com 2011-09-26 13:45:02 EDT --- Thanks guys ...
successfully built ... closing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=737969
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |akurtako@redhat.com Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) |
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org