https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
Bug ID: 1649577 Summary: Review Request: jmc-core - Core API for Java Mission Control 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/jmc-core/jmc-core.spec 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. Java Mission Control is an advanced set of tools that enables efficient and detailed analysis of the extensive data collected by Java Flight Recorder. The tool chain enables developers and administrators to collect and analyze data from Java applications running locally or deployed in production environments.
Fedora Account System Username: sasiddiq Successful Copr Build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/sasiddiq/jmc/build/823530/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |http://openjdk.java.net/pro | |jects/jmc/ CC| |sasiddiq@redhat.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR), | |1649552 Depends On| |1649569
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=1649552 [Bug 1649552] Review Request: jmc - Profiling and diagnostics tool for Java applications https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649569 [Bug 1649569] Review Request: owasp-java-encoder - Collection of high-performance low-overhead contextual encoders
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #1 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1505469 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1505469&action=edit rpmlint - SPEC
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #2 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1505470 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1505470&action=edit rpmlint - SRPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #3 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- Created attachment 1505471 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=1505471&action=edit rpmlint - RPM
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
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=1649577
--- 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=1649577
Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jkang@redhat.com
--- Comment #5 from Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com --- JMC 7.0.0 is not yet released and the repository is in SNAPSHOT mode. Following [1] I think it makes sense to have snapshot information in the Release tag.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #6 from Mario Torre neugens@redhat.com --- (In reply to Jie Kang from comment #5)
JMC 7.0.0 is not yet released and the repository is in SNAPSHOT mode. Following [1] I think it makes sense to have snapshot information in the Release tag.
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshots
Makes sense, we can use SNAPSHOT or Prerelease versioning I believe, we need to be careful that when the package is released it will update the pre-release though, I don't think we want both version to co-exist at this time, which is something we may want to do with released major versions of JMC.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #7 from Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com --- # original source: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/jmc/jmc/archive/tip.tar.gz Source0: jmc-core-7.0.0.tar.gz
This won't work. Sources need to be reproducible. The only way to do this is to use specific revisions/tags and a script to produce the tarball. tip.tar.gz will be different at time A and time A + a month.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #8 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- There is a script that is used to produce the tarball (it downloads a specific revision, NOT the tip): https://pagure.io/jmc-rpm/blob/master/f/jmc-core/generate_jmc_core_tarball.s...
Would it be better to include this script in the comments directly in the spec file?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #9 from Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com --- (In reply to Salman Siddiqui from comment #8)
There is a script that is used to produce the tarball (it downloads a specific revision, NOT the tip): https://pagure.io/jmc-rpm/blob/master/f/jmc-core/generate_jmc_core_tarball.s...
Would it be better to include this script in the comments directly in the spec file?
Yes, a comment needs to be added to the spec file how to generated the source tarball. See this for example: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/objectweb-asm/blob/master/f/objectweb-asm...
The script should be included in the srpm.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577 Bug 1649577 depends on bug 1649569, which changed state.
Bug 1649569 Summary: Review Request: owasp-java-encoder - Collection of high-performance low-overhead contextual encoders https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649569
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #10 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- Updated.
Added reproducible steps to generate source tarball in spec. Use SNAPSHOT versioning.
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=1649577
--- Comment #11 from Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com --- jmc-core 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "EPL (v1.0) BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 57 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkang/Work/fedora-reviews/jmc- core/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. [x]: 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 20480 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: [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jmc- core-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: jmc-core-7.0.0-1.20181017hgecb68ef82eb7.fc28.noarch.rpm jmc-core-javadoc-7.0.0-1.20181017hgecb68ef82eb7.fc28.noarch.rpm jmc-core-7.0.0-1.20181017hgecb68ef82eb7.fc28.src.rpm jmc-core.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.0.0-1 ['7.0.0-1.20181017hgecb68ef82eb7.fc28', '7.0.0-1.20181017hgecb68ef82eb7'] jmc-core.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core.src: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jmc-core-7.0.0.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory jmc-core.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.0.0-1 ['7.0.0-1.20181017hgecb68ef82eb7.fc28', '7.0.0-1.20181017hgecb68ef82eb7'] jmc-core.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jmc/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> jmc-core-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jmc/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Requires -------- jmc-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(org.owasp.encoder:encoder) osgi(org.junit) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.common) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.common.test) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules.jdk)
jmc-core-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools
Provides -------- jmc-core: jmc-core mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common.test) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common.test:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.jdk) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.jdk.test) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.jdk.test:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.jdk:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.test) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.test:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.test) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.test:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:missioncontrol.core.tests:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:missioncontrol.core:pom:) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.common) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.common.test) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules.jdk) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules.jdk.test) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules.test) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.test)
jmc-core-javadoc: jmc-core-javadoc
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L rpms/ --rpm-spec -n ./srpms/jmc-core-7.0.0-1.20181017hgecb68ef82eb7.fc29.src.rpm 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jkang@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #12 from Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com --- Following the sample [1], please include a .sh script in the srpm that users can run without modification to acquire the sources.
The comments in the spec [2] aren't useful as users can't copy-paste and run them without a large amount of modification to acquire the source.
[1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/objectweb-asm/blob/master/f/objectweb-asm...
[2] # original source: http://hg.openjdk.java.net/%%%7Bname%7D/%%%7Bname%7D/archive/%%%7Bhgrevhash%... # wget http://hg.openjdk.java.net/%%%7Bname%7D/%%%7Bname%7D/archive/%%%7Bhgrevhash%... # tar xzf %%{hgrevhash}.tar.gz # rm %%{hgrevhash}.tar.gz # cp -r %%{name}-%%{hgrevhash}/core/ %%{name}-%%{version}/ # cp %%{name}-%%{hgrevhash}/license/* %%{name}-%%{version}/ # cp %%{name}-%%{hgrevhash}/README.md %%{name}-%%{version}/ # tar czf %%{name}-%%{version}.tar.gz %%{name}-%%{version}/ # rm -r %%{name}-%%{version}/ %%{name}-%%{hgrevhash} Source0: %{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #13 from Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com --- Updated.
Added tarball generation script to SRPM.
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=1649577
--- Comment #14 from Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com --- jmc-core Package Review 2 =========================
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: "BSD (3 clause)", "EPL (v1.0) BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 59 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jkang/Work/fedora-reviews/jmc- core/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. [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. [-]: 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 20480 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: [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jmc- core-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: 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. [-]: %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]: 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: jmc-core-7.0.0-1.20181122hg9aa7085f938b.fc28.noarch.rpm jmc-core-javadoc-7.0.0-1.20181122hg9aa7085f938b.fc28.noarch.rpm jmc-core-7.0.0-1.20181122hg9aa7085f938b.fc28.src.rpm jmc-core.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core.src: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core.src: W: strange-permission generate_jmc_core_tarball.sh 775 jmc-core.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jmc-core-7.0.0.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory jmc-core.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jmc/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> jmc-core-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jmc/ <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Requires -------- jmc-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(org.owasp.encoder:encoder) osgi(org.junit) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.common) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.common.test) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules.jdk)
jmc-core-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools
Provides -------- jmc-core: jmc-core mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common.test) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common.test:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.jdk) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.jdk.test) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.jdk.test:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.jdk:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.test) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.test:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.test) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.test:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:missioncontrol.core.tests:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:missioncontrol.core:pom:) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.common) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.common.test) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules.jdk) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules.jdk.test) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules.test) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.test)
jmc-core-javadoc: jmc-core-javadoc
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
Jie Kang jkang@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #15 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jmc-core
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
Salman Siddiqui sasiddiq@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2018-11-26 16:33:45
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1649577
--- Comment #16 from Severin Gehwolf sgehwolf@redhat.com --- The choice of Release with 1.<something> wasn't ideal. Be sure to bump the release to -2 once 7.0.0 is actually released:
$ rpmdev-vercmp 0:7.0.0-1.20181122hg9aa7085f938b.fc29 0:7.0.0-1.fc29 0:7.0.0-1.20181122hg9aa7085f938b.fc29 > 0:7.0.0-1.fc29
If 0 instead of 1 would have been chosen one gets:
$ rpmdev-vercmp 0:7.0.0-0.20181122hg9aa7085f938b.fc29 0:7.0.0-1.fc29 0:7.0.0-0.20181122hg9aa7085f938b.fc29 < 0:7.0.0-1.fc29
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com