https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426333
Bug ID: 1426333 Summary: Review Request: jline3 - JLine is a Java library for handling console input Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: skitt@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://www.sk2.org/rpm/jline3.spec SRPM URL: http://www.sk2.org/rpm/jline3-3.1.3-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: JLine is a Java library for handling console input. It is similar in functionality to BSD editline and GNU readline. People familiar with the readline/editline capabilities for modern shells (such as bash and tcsh) will find most of the command editing features of JLine to be familiar. Fedora Account System Username: skitt
This is my first package, and I need a sponsor. The package is based on the existing jline package, but given the way jline 2 and 3 are used I think it makes sense to have both in parallel (as used to be the case with jline 1 and 2).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426333
Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |karlthered@gmail.com Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |karlthered@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- I blocked the FE-NEEDSPONSOR as required per policy as you're not sponsored in the packaging group. I will be sponsoring Stephen as stated on the fedora-devel mailing-list.
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=1426333
--- Comment #2 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- Packaging looks sane but there's a build failure on rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18113715
I suspect missing build deps
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426333
--- Comment #3 from Stephen Kitt skitt@redhat.com --- (In reply to Haïkel Guémar from comment #2)
Packaging looks sane but there's a build failure on rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18113715
I suspect missing build deps
Sorry about that, it's fixed now: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=18121293
I've replaced the .spec and .src.rpm, they're in the same locations as previously.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426333
Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |per@bothner.com
--- Comment #4 from Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1428030 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426333
Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Haïkel Guémar karlthered@gmail.com --- Please include license in both subpackages using %license macros (it's included in the tarballs)
Note that I used a F25 buildroot to validate this package, it seems to fail again against Rawhide (now F26) but I'm confident that Stephen can fix it. I also sponsor Stephen into Fedora Packagers group and will help him to get up to speed.
I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection, please submit a PkgDB request.
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. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 144 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/hguemar/1426333-jline3/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: [ ]: 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: [-]: 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 jline3-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: jline3-3.1.3-1.fc25.noarch.rpm jline3-javadoc-3.1.3-1.fc25.noarch.rpm jline3-3.1.3-1.fc25.src.rpm jline3.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) JLine -> J Line, Line, Aline jline3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JLine -> J Line, Line, Aline jline3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US editline -> edit line, edit-line, lined jline3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readline -> breadline, deadline, headline jline3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcsh -> tosh, tush jline3.noarch: W: no-documentation jline3-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados jline3.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) JLine -> J Line, Line, Aline jline3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JLine -> J Line, Line, Aline jline3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US editline -> edit line, edit-line, lined jline3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readline -> breadline, deadline, headline jline3.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcsh -> tosh, tush 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- jline3.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) JLine -> J Line, Line, Aline jline3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JLine -> J Line, Line, Aline jline3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US editline -> edit line, edit-line, lined jline3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US readline -> breadline, deadline, headline jline3.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tcsh -> tosh, tush jline3.noarch: W: no-documentation jline3-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Requires -------- jline3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools
jline3-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools
Provides -------- jline3: jline3 mvn(org.jline:jline) mvn(org.jline:jline:pom:) osgi(org.jline)
jline3-javadoc: jline3-javadoc
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jline/jline3/archive/jline-3.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 282c0e2657c1568bbea932a48033164a87e0e0e48958072fc67dff580fd49dac CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 282c0e2657c1568bbea932a48033164a87e0e0e48958072fc67dff580fd49dac
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1426333 -m fedora-25-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-25-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=1426333
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/jline3
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1426333
Stephen Kitt skitt@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |VERIFIED
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org