https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
Bug ID: 830677 QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org Severity: medium Version: rawhide Priority: medium CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Summary: Review Request: jbosgi-deployment - JBoss OSGi Deployment Regression: --- Story Points: --- Classification: Fedora OS: Linux Reporter: mgoldman@redhat.com Type: --- Documentation: --- Hardware: All Mount Type: --- Status: NEW Component: Package Review Product: Fedora
Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-deployment/1.0.12-1/j... SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-deployment/1.0.12-1/j... Description: This package contains the JBoss OSGi deployment support. Fedora Account System Username: goldmann
Note for reviewer: there is a newer version available, but it's a major upgrade to what AS7 expects. Will be updated once AS7 move to newer version.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Depends On| |830125, 829329
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |829402
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
--- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com --- Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4192657
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mizdebsk@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |mizdebsk@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- I am taking this review.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
--- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint jbosgi-deployment-javadoc-1.0.12-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
jbosgi-deployment-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados jbosgi-deployment-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint jbosgi-deployment-1.0.12-1.fc18.src.rpm
jbosgi-deployment.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) JBoss -> J Boss, Boss jbosgi-deployment.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jbosgi-deployment.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jbosgi-deployment-1.0.12.Final.tar.xz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
rpmlint jbosgi-deployment-1.0.12-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
jbosgi-deployment.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) JBoss -> J Boss, Boss jbosgi-deployment.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jbosgi-deployment.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
These warnings can be ignored.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Package has no sources or they are generated by developer [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [?]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [!]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
==== Java ==== [x]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
==== Maven ==== [x]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
Issues:
[!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
This package uses jboss-logging, but it's not requiring it. Please add missing requirement and I'll approve this package.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
--- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com --- Fixed BR/R.
Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-deployment/1.0.12-2/j... SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-deployment/1.0.12-2/j...
Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4193035
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com --- Perfect.
*************** ** APPROVED *** ***************
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com --- Thanks!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jbosgi-deployment Short Description: JBoss OSGi Deployment Owners: goldmann Branches: f17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
Mikolaj Izdebski mizdebsk@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |830763
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jbosgi-deployment-1.0.12-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbosgi-deployment-1.0.12-2.fc17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
Marek Goldmann mgoldman@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jbosgi-deployment-1.0.12-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=830677
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2012-07-05 19:28:05
--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jbosgi-deployment-1.0.12-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla