[Bug 1011705] New: Review Request: datanucleus-core - Java persistence abstraction layer
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
Bug ID: 1011705 Summary: Review Request: datanucleus-core - Java persistence abstraction layer Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: pmackinn@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
DataNucleus Core provides the primary components of a heterogeneous Java persistence solution. It supports persistence API's being layered on top of the core functionality.
SPEC URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/datanucleus/datanucleus-core.spec SRPM URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/datanucleus/datanucleus-core-3.2.7-2.fc19.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC|package-review@lists.fedora | |project.org | Depends On| |1011696, 1010383 | |(threeten,time-api), | |1010293 (JCache,JSR107)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
Bug 1011705 depends on bug 1011696, which changed state.
Bug 1011696 Summary: Review Request: jdo-api https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011696
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- hi is available new release datanucleus-core 3.2.9
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- build fails, cause: Failed to resolve artifact: javax.cache:cache-api:pom:0.9
please, remove cache-api references
http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/5488/6205488/build.log http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6205486
i can proceed with a a manual review only, cause: Error: No package found for mvn(javax.time:time-api)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #8 from Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com --- cache-api is disabled in the latest (.3). Are you reviewing an older version?
Anyway I will be updating to 3.2.9 (if possible) per comment #6.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #9 from Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com --- Hmmm, maybe certain versions of xmvn are ignoring the <optional>true</optional> attribute. I will explicitly remove the dep in next update.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Pete MacKinnon from comment #8)
cache-api is disabled in the latest (.3). Are you reviewing an older version?
Anyway I will be updating to 3.2.9 (if possible) per comment #6.
usually if you dont have a build dep you must remove this one references, also if its use <optional>true</optional>
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #11 from Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com --- Updated to 3.2.9, cache-api fully removed, tests disabled:
SPEC URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/datanucleus/datanucleus-core.spec SRPM URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/datanucleus/datanucleus-core-3.2.9-1.fc19.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- build fails
[INFO] --- xmvn-mojo:1.3.0:install (default-cli) @ datanucleus-core --- [WARNING] Failed to resolve artifact: org.apache.ivy:ivy:pom:2.3.0 [WARNING] The POM for org.apache.ivy:ivy:jar:2.3.0 is missing, no dependency information available [ERROR] Reactor project org.datanucleus:datanucleus-core:jar:3.2.9 has system-scoped dependencies: [ org.eclipse.equinox:org.eclipse.equinox.registry::jar:3.5.0.v20100503, org.eclipse.equinox:org.eclipse.equinox.common::jar:3.6.0.v20100503, org.eclipse.equinox:org.eclipse.equinox.preferences::jar:3.3.0.v20100503, org.eclipse.core:org.eclipse.core.runtime::jar:3.6.0.v20100505, org.eclipse.core:org.eclipse.core.contenttype::jar:3.4.100.v20100505-1235, org.eclipse.core:org.eclipse.core.jobs::jar:3.5.0.v20100515 ] [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] BUILD FAILURE [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [INFO] Total time: 26.484s [INFO] Finished at: Wed Nov 20 17:08:08 UTC 2013 [INFO] Final Memory: 25M/399M [INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------ [ERROR] Failed to execute goal org.fedoraproject.xmvn:xmvn-mojo:1.3.0:install (default-cli) on project datanucleus-core: Some reactor artifacts have dependencies with scope "system". Such dependencies are not supported by XMvn installer. You should either remove any dependencies with scope "system" before the build or not run XMvn instaler. -> [Help 1] [ERROR]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #13 from Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com --- Sigh, that is because xmvn 1.3 has new restrictions on system scope. :-(
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- any ideas how solve this ....?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #15 from Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com --- Investigating and experimenting with options, ranging from manipulating the package/install phase somehow for xmvn to just compiling out the plugin portion completely. If I recall, a previous attempt at that failed due to a hidden core dependency.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #16 from Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com --- Switched to manual xmvn build and install instead of macros to work around system scope limitation:
SPEC URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/datanucleus/datanucleus-core.spec SRPM URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/datanucleus/datanucleus-core-3.2.9-2.fc20.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #17 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- why this package as marked as noarch? if the builder system is for e.g. x64 then the build deps [1] are in /usr/lib64 after in the pom file, are not available on x86 arch ...
[1] org.eclipse.core.contenttype org.eclipse.core.jobs org.eclipse.core.runtime org.eclipse.equinox.registry org.eclipse.equinox.common org.eclipse.equinox.preferences
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |needinfo+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |puntogil@libero.it Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #18 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Package Review ==============
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed
Issues: ======= - Maven packages should use new style packaging Note: If possible update your package to latest guidelines See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven
===== 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. [!]: 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". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1011705-datanucleus- core/licensecheck.txt see src/java/org/datanucleus/util/Base64.java /********************************************************************** //Copyright 2003-2009 Christian d'Heureuse, Inventec Informatik AG, Zurich, Switzerland //www.source-code.biz, www.inventec.ch/chdh // //This module is multi-licensed and may be used under the terms //of any of the following licenses: // //EPL, Eclipse Public License, http://www.eclipse.org/legal //LGPL, GNU Lesser General Public License, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html //AL, Apache License, http://www.apache.org/licenses //BSD, BSD License, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php // //Please contact the author if you need another license. //This module is provided "as is", without warranties of any kind.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. *********** see src/java/org/datanucleus/util/Base64.java *********** [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 [-]: 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. [?]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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 %doc. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java: [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) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct or update to latest guidelines [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: If tests are skipped during package build explain why it was needed in a comment Note: Tests seem to be skipped. Verify there is a commment giving a reason for this [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]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in datanucleus-core-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [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. [x]: %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]: 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]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: datanucleus-core-3.2.9-2.fc21.noarch.rpm datanucleus-core-javadoc-3.2.9-2.fc21.noarch.rpm datanucleus-core-3.2.9-2.fc21.src.rpm datanucleus-core.src: W: invalid-url Source0: datanucleus-core-3.2.9.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint datanucleus-core datanucleus-core-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- datanucleus-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
datanucleus-core-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
Provides -------- datanucleus-core: datanucleus-core mvn(org.datanucleus:datanucleus-core) osgi(org.datanucleus)
datanucleus-core-javadoc: datanucleus-core-javadoc
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1011705 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo+ |
--- Comment #19 from Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com --- The eclipse dependencies are marked as optional in maven. Thus, they do not transfer arch requirements beyond the datanucleus-core package itself. There are no symlinks (and none required) to those jars for runtime. A user would have to construct an appropriate classpath for their env to add those.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #20 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Pete MacKinnon from comment #19)
The eclipse dependencies are marked as optional in maven. Thus, they do not transfer arch requirements beyond the datanucleus-core package itself. There are no symlinks (and none required) to those jars for runtime. A user would have to construct an appropriate classpath for their env to add those.
even if they are marked as optional, this rule does not apply when it comes to building a package that has this package as a dependency.
if they are really optional could be removed without problems, in order not to use the eclipse stuff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #21 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- observed issues:
[!]: 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". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1011705-datanucleus- core/licensecheck.txt see src/java/org/datanucleus/util/Base64.java /********************************************************************** //Copyright 2003-2009 Christian d'Heureuse, Inventec Informatik AG, Zurich, Switzerland //www.source-code.biz, www.inventec.ch/chdh // //This module is multi-licensed and may be used under the terms //of any of the following licenses: // //EPL, Eclipse Public License, http://www.eclipse.org/legal //LGPL, GNU Lesser General Public License, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.html //AL, Apache License, http://www.apache.org/licenses //BSD, BSD License, http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php // //Please contact the author if you need another license. //This module is provided "as is", without warranties of any kind.
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. *********** see src/java/org/datanucleus/util/Base64.java ***********
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #22 from Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com --- Added multi-licenses to cover Base64.java:
SPEC URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/datanucleus/datanucleus-core.spec SRPM URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/datanucleus/datanucleus-core-3.2.9-3.fc20.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #23 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- you should create a new FPC exception request as for time-api if you want use src/java/org/datanucleus/util/Base64.java
This class should be provided by some packages already existing in Fedora:
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/base64coder (original source repository http://www.source-code.biz/base64coder/java)
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/java-base64
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #24 from Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com --- Respun dist -3. Removed multi-license updates and instead removed DN Base64 impl and changed usage to that of Fedora base64coder package (appears to be equivalent).
SPEC URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/datanucleus/datanucleus-core.spec SRPM URL: http://pmackinn.fedorapeople.org/datanucleus/datanucleus-core-3.2.9-3.fc20.s...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #25 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #26 from Pete MacKinnon pmackinn@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: datanucleus-core Short Description: Heterogeneous Java persistence solution Owners: pmackinn Branches: f20 InitialCC: java-sig
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #27 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
Bug 1011705 depends on bug 1010383, which changed state.
Bug 1010383 Summary: Review Request: time-api - javax.time JSR310 API (threeten) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010383
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
--- Comment #28 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- datanucleus-core-3.2.9-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/datanucleus-core-3.2.9-3.fc20
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #29 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- datanucleus-core-3.2.9-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |datanucleus-core-3.2.9-3.fc | |20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2014-01-03 03:44:40
--- Comment #30 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- datanucleus-core-3.2.9-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1011705
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |akurtako@redhat.com 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