9:07 p.m.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860503
Bug ID: 860503
Blocks: 652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
Severity: medium
Version: rawhide
Priority: unspecified
CC: mgoldman(a)redhat.com, notting(a)redhat.com,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Summary: Review request: opensaml-java-xmltooling - Java
XMLTooling library
Regression: ---
Story Points: ---
Classification: Fedora
OS: Unspecified
Reporter: pobara(a)redhat.com
Type: Bug
Documentation: ---
Hardware: Unspecified
Mount Type: ---
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Product: Fedora
Spec URL:
http://dreamertan.fedorapeople.org/srpm/opensaml-java-xmltooling/1.3.4-1....
SRPM URL:
http://dreamertan.fedorapeople.org/srpm/opensaml-java-xmltooling/1.3.4-1....
Description:
Java XMLTooling is a low-level library that may be used to construct libraries
that allow developers to work with XML in a Java beans manner.
http://www.opensaml.org/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
9:10 p.m.
New subject: [Bug 860503] Review request: opensaml-java-xmltooling - Java XMLTooling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860503
Patryk Obara <pobara(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blocks| |860505
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
2:25 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 860503] Review request: opensaml-java-xmltooling - Java XMLTooling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860503
Marek Goldmann <mgoldman(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mgoldman(a)redhat.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
3:16 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 860503] Review request: opensaml-java-xmltooling - Java XMLTooling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860503
--- Comment #1 from Marek Goldmann <mgoldman(a)redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#macros
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Please include license text file, as per new guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#License_Text You
can use this file: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt
===== 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
javadoc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/goldmann/work/review/opensaml-
java-xmltooling/860503-opensaml-java-xmltooling/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Note: Using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Test run failed
Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[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]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[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)
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[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.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: 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]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Java:
[x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[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.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Test run failed
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: opensaml-java-xmltooling-javadoc-1.3.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
opensaml-java-xmltooling-1.3.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
opensaml-java-xmltooling-1.3.4-1.fc17.src.rpm
opensaml-java-xmltooling-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
opensaml-java-xmltooling.src: W: invalid-url Source0:
opensaml-java-xmltooling-1.3.4.tar.xz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint opensaml-java-xmltooling opensaml-java-xmltooling-javadoc
opensaml-java-xmltooling-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US)
Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
opensaml-java-xmltooling-javadoc-1.3.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC
filtered):
jpackage-utils
opensaml-java-xmltooling-1.3.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
bouncycastle
java
jcip-annotations
jpackage-utils
slf4j
xml-security
Provides
--------
opensaml-java-xmltooling-javadoc-1.3.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm:
opensaml-java-xmltooling-javadoc = 1.3.4-1.fc17
opensaml-java-xmltooling-1.3.4-1.fc17.noarch.rpm:
mvn(org.opensaml:xmltooling)
opensaml-java-xmltooling = 1.3.4-1.fc17
MD5-sum check
-------------
Upstream: d4d0d10c32bdea1d4d51b5c28301f6db176d21a180694b36c7017ef8fc7b220d
opensaml-java-xmltooling-1.3.4.tar.xz
This: de48b9732504b5ba4e2d9eb9dc07a22874fb5de3f4243766313c66b64f2ac45f
SOURCES/opensaml-java-xmltooling-1.3.4.tar.xz
OK, SVN export.
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (Unknown) last change: Unknown
Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64
Command line :/home/goldmann/git/FedoraReview/try-fedora-review -b 860503
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
3:17 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 860503] Review request: opensaml-java-xmltooling - Java XMLTooling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860503
--- Comment #2 from Marek Goldmann <mgoldman(a)redhat.com> ---
As a note - you can use POM macros instead patching things manually:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/User:Akurtakov/JavaPackagingDraftUpdate#Pa...
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:30 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 860503] Review request: opensaml-java-xmltooling - Java XMLTooling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860503
--- Comment #3 from Marek Goldmann <mgoldman(a)redhat.com> ---
Additionally - the package is missing following Requires:
not-yet-commons-ssl
apache-commons-codec
joda-time
xml-apis
xerces
xalan
xml-commons-apis
Please check the BR too.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:37 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 860503] Review request: opensaml-java-xmltooling - Java XMLTooling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860503
--- Comment #4 from Marek Goldmann <mgoldman(a)redhat.com> ---
Of course xml-apis should be removed from above list, but xml-commons-apis
should stay.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4:40 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 860503] Review request: opensaml-java-xmltooling - Java XMLTooling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860503
--- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann <mgoldman(a)redhat.com> ---
Not my day... xalan should be renamed to xalan-j and xerces to xerces-j2.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
3:03 a.m.
New subject: [Bug 860503] Review request: opensaml-java-xmltooling - Java XMLTooling library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=860503
Marek Goldmann <mgoldman(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED
Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |201449 (FE-DEADREVIEW)
Resolution|--- |DEFERRED
Last Closed| |2012-10-15 04:03:10
--- Comment #6 from Marek Goldmann <mgoldman(a)redhat.com> ---
Unresponsive packager, closing and blocking FE-DEADREVIEW.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
4261
days inactive
4280
days old
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
8 comments
1 participants
participants (1)
-
Red Hat Bugzilla