https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
Bug ID: 976051 Summary: Review Request: jsmpp - Java SMPP (Short Message Peer-to-peer) API Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puntogil@libero.it QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jsmpp.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jsmpp-2.1.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: The Java implementation of SMPP protocol (currently supports SMPP v 3.4). Fedora Account System Username: gil
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5521585
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |968136
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
Michael Simacek msimacek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |msimacek@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |msimacek@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jsmpp.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jsmpp-2.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8796550
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
Michael Simacek msimacek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Michael Simacek msimacek@redhat.com --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/msimacek/976051-jsmpp/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java False positive [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. [-]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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]: 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 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.
Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Test run failed [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 depmaps) even when building with ant [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 %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jsmpp- javadoc [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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: jsmpp-2.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm jsmpp-examples-2.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm jsmpp-javadoc-2.1.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm jsmpp-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:
Requires -------- jsmpp-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsmpp
jsmpp-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
jsmpp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(log4j:log4j:1.2.17) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-log4j12)
Provides -------- jsmpp-examples: jsmpp-examples
jsmpp-javadoc: jsmpp-javadoc
jsmpp: jsmpp mvn(com.googlecode.jsmpp:jsmpp) mvn(com.googlecode.jsmpp:jsmpp:pom:) mvn(org.apache.servicemix.bundles:org.apache.servicemix.bundles.jsmpp) mvn(org.apache.servicemix.bundles:org.apache.servicemix.bundles.jsmpp:pom:) osgi(com.googlecode.jsmpp)
Source checksums ---------------- http://jsmpp.googlecode.com/files/jsmpp-2.1.0-src.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8e87e0b58f7288893634644a852579106129596aa08c9ae0c5437e4a10cb6b9b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8e87e0b58f7288893634644a852579106129596aa08c9ae0c5437e4a10cb6b9b http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/com/googlecode/jsmpp/jsmpp/2.1.0-RELEASE/jsmpp... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1f90c8bd3b6ffc789098ba3d0408b1b67700651a252d9b535d7b4732c773edce CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1f90c8bd3b6ffc789098ba3d0408b1b67700651a252d9b535d7b4732c773edce
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 976051 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Looks ok, APPROVED.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jsmpp Short Description: Java SMPP (Short Message Peer-to-peer) API Upstream URL: http://code.google.com/p/jsmpp/ Owners: gil InitialCC: java-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |jsmpp-2.1.0-1.fc22 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2015-02-03 17:54:54
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Thanks for everything! Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8813599
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=976051
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla