[Bug 1649576] New: Review Request: fix-info-plist-maven-plugin - Fix Info.plist file generated by p2-maven-plugin during Tycho build
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
Bug ID: 1649576 Summary: Review Request: fix-info-plist-maven-plugin - Fix Info.plist file generated by p2-maven-plugin during Tycho build Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: sasiddiq@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://pagure.io/jmc-rpm/blob/master/f/fix-info-plist-maven-plugin/fix-info... SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sasiddiq/jmc/fedora-29-x86_6...
Description: Just submitted my first package. I am seeking a sponsor. Small Maven plugin to "fix" the Info.plist file generated by p2 during a Tycho product build. This Maven plugin manipulates the Info.plist between the materialize-products and archive-products goals of the P2 Directory Tycho plugin to provide a custom Info.plist file for Eclipse RCP product.
Fedora Account System Username: sasiddiq Successful Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sasiddiq/jmc/build/823525/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://github.com/buchen/f | |ix-info-plist-maven-plugin CC| |sasiddiq@redhat.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Depends On| |1649572
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=1649572 [Bug 1649572] Review Request: dd-plist - A java library providing support for ASCII, XML and binary property lists.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
--- Comment #1 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1505466 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1505466&action=edit rpmlint - SPEC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
--- Comment #2 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1505467 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1505467&action=edit rpmlint - SRPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
--- Comment #3 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1505468 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1505468&action=edit rpmlint - RPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1649552
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649552 [Bug 1649552] Review Request: jmc - Profiling and diagnostics tool for Java applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |sgehwolf@redhat.com 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=1649576
--- Comment #4 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- Updated.
SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sasiddiq/jmc/fedora-29-x86_6...
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sasiddiq/jmc/fedora-29-x86_6...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |jkang@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jkang@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
--- Comment #5 from Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com --- The package will need to have a runtime dependency on dd-plist and xz-java as it does not include the packages in the jar it builds. It looks like the rpm build system adds the requires automatically but I think it's best to specify it explicitly.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
--- Comment #6 from Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jie Kang from comment #5)
The package will need to have a runtime dependency on dd-plist and xz-java as it does not include the packages in the jar it builds. It looks like the rpm build system adds the requires automatically but I think it's best to specify it explicitly.
I disagree, sorry.
The build generates this:
Requires(rpmlib): rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(FileDigests) <= 4.6.0-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 Requires: java-headless >= 1:1.7 javapackages-filesystem mvn(com.googlecode.plist:dd-plist) mvn(org.tukaani:xz)
Then in a mock with xz-java and dd-plist installed I see:
<mock-chroot> sh-4.4# rpm -q --whatprovides 'mvn(org.tukaani:xz)' xz-java-1.8-3.fc29.noarch <mock-chroot> sh-4.4# rpm -q --whatprovides 'mvn(com.googlecode.plist:dd-plist)' dd-plist-1.21-1.fc30.noarch
Listing it explicitly will have the requirements in place twice and clutters the spec file.
Perhaps adding a comment that requirements will get generated by the maven requires generator is enough?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
--- Comment #7 from Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com --- When you say requirements in place twice, do you mean the duplicate BR and R?
Sure, a comment works for me.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
--- Comment #8 from Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jie Kang from comment #7)
When you say requirements in place twice, do you mean the duplicate BR and R?
No. If an explicit "Requires: xz-java dd-plist" was being added, we'd have the same requirement twice in the binary rpm. Once via mvn()-requires, another time due to the above.
Sure, a comment works for me.
Thanks!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
--- Comment #9 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- Updated.
Add comment about maven requires generator.
SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sasiddiq/jmc/fedora-29-x86_6...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
--- Comment #10 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- SPEC URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sasiddiq/jmc/fedora-29-x86_6...
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/sasiddiq/jmc/fedora-29-x86_6...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
--- Comment #11 from Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com --- fix-info-plist-maven-plugin Package Review 1 ============================================
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* EPL (v1.0)", "Unknown or generated", "EPL (v1.0)". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkang/Work/fedora-reviews/fix-info-plist-maven- plugin/licensecheck.txt [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 1 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in fix- info-plist-maven-plugin-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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).
Rpmlint ------- Checking: fix-info-plist-maven-plugin-1.2-1.fc28.noarch.rpm fix-info-plist-maven-plugin-javadoc-1.2-1.fc28.noarch.rpm fix-info-plist-maven-plugin-1.2-1.fc28.src.rpm fix-info-plist-maven-plugin.noarch: W: invalid-license EPL-1.0 fix-info-plist-maven-plugin-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license EPL-1.0 fix-info-plist-maven-plugin.src: W: invalid-license EPL-1.0 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory fix-info-plist-maven-plugin-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license EPL-1.0 fix-info-plist-maven-plugin-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/buchen/fix-info-plist-maven-plugin <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> fix-info-plist-maven-plugin.noarch: W: invalid-license EPL-1.0 fix-info-plist-maven-plugin.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/buchen/fix-info-plist-maven-plugin <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires -------- fix-info-plist-maven-plugin-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools
fix-info-plist-maven-plugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(com.googlecode.plist:dd-plist) mvn(org.tukaani:xz)
Provides -------- fix-info-plist-maven-plugin-javadoc: fix-info-plist-maven-plugin-javadoc
fix-info-plist-maven-plugin: fix-info-plist-maven-plugin mvn(name.abuchen:fix-info-plist-maven-plugin) mvn(name.abuchen:fix-info-plist-maven-plugin:pom:)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/buchen/fix-info-plist-maven-plugin/archive/1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 593afa805c2e6619931c4724e3cae18ec99cce9a073ecba17ffc0b963a496f5a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 593afa805c2e6619931c4724e3cae18ec99cce9a073ecba17ffc0b963a496f5a
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n ./srpms/fix-info-plist-maven-plugin-1.2-1.fc29.src.rpm -L rpms/ Buildroot used: fedora-28-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Built with local dependencies: /home/jkang/Work/fedora-reviews/rpms/dd-plist-1.21-1.fc28.noarch.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576 Bug 1649576 depends on bug 1649572, which changed state.
Bug 1649572 Summary: Review Request: dd-plist - A java library providing support for ASCII, XML and binary property lists. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649572
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
--- Comment #12 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fix-info-plist-maven-plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649576
Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2018-11-26 09:37:58
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com