[Bug 1999177] New: Review Request: system-rules - A collection of JUnit rules for testing code which uses java.lang.System
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999177
Bug ID: 1999177 Summary: Review Request: system-rules - A collection of JUnit rules for testing code which uses java.lang.System Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Status: NEW Component: Package Review Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: didiksupriadi41@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/system-rules.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/system-rules-1.19.0-1.fc34.src.rpm
Description: System Rules is a collection of JUnit rules for testing code which uses java.lang.System.
Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999177
--- Comment #1 from Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com --- This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=74810416
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999177
Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |2005183
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005183 [Bug 2005183] Review Request: fishbowl - A collection of helper methods for dealing with exceptions in Java 8
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999177
Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d | |e
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999177
--- Comment #2 from Robert Scheck redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.de --- As mentioned in bug #2000976, I'm not experienced in Java (packaging), I've read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/java-packaging-howto/manpages/, and I'll try to review this...hopefully.
%pom_xpath_inject pom:project '<groupId>com.github.stefanbirkner</groupId>' %pom_remove_plugin :animal-sniffer-maven-plugin %pom_add_dep org.apache.commons:commons-lang3 %pom_xpath_inject 'pom:project/pom:build/pom:plugins/pom:plugin[pom:artifactId="maven-surefire-plugin"]' '<version>any</version>'
Why are these POM changes needed? Does it make sense to put the reason/explanation into comments inside the spec file?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999177
--- Comment #3 from Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com --- (In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #2)
As mentioned in bug #2000976, I'm not experienced in Java (packaging), I've read https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/java-packaging-howto/manpages/, and I'll try to review this...hopefully.
%pom_xpath_inject pom:project '<groupId>com.github.stefanbirkner</groupId>' %pom_remove_plugin :animal-sniffer-maven-plugin %pom_add_dep org.apache.commons:commons-lang3 %pom_xpath_inject 'pom:project/pom:build/pom:plugins/pom:plugin[pom:artifactId="maven-surefire-plugin"]' '<version>any</version>'
Why are these POM changes needed? Does it make sense to put the reason/explanation into comments inside the spec file?
I've fixed some issues and added explanations for each pom_*
Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/system-rules.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/system-rules-1.19.0-2.fc34.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999177
Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d | |e Status|NEW |POST Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de --- 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", "Common Public License 1.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 48 files have unknown license. [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. [-]: 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 below). [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local
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 below). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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. [-]: 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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see diff below). -> Even there is a small difference, it doesn't have an impact for the packaged result. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see below).
Rpmlint ------- system-rules-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs: 99% system-rules.noarch: W: no-documentation system-rules-javadoc.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 287630 system-rules-javadoc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/javadoc/system-rules/jquery/jquery-3.5.1.js /usr/share/javadoc/system-rules/jquery/external/jquery/jquery.js system-rules-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/system-rules/member-search-index.zip system-rules-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/system-rules/package-search-index.zip system-rules-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/system-rules/type-search-index.zip
-> I don't think the -javadoc issues can be addressed via the spec file, as the package is automatically generated using Fedora RPM macros
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- system-rules-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs: 99% system-rules.noarch: W: no-documentation system-rules-javadoc.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 287630 system-rules-javadoc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/javadoc/system-rules/jquery/jquery-3.5.1.js /usr/share/javadoc/system-rules/jquery/external/jquery/jquery.js system-rules-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/system-rules/member-search-index.zip system-rules-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/system-rules/package-search-index.zip system-rules-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/system-rules/type-search-index.zip
-> I don't think the -javadoc issues can be addressed via the spec file, as the package is automatically generated using Fedora RPM macros
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/stefanbirkner/system-rules/archive/system-rules-1.19.0/sy... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 09c39af89b4ffb2cdd50bbfc6d89472efc985538ab1762f4d1e4f7725010bc56 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 09c39af89b4ffb2cdd50bbfc6d89472efc985538ab1762f4d1e4f7725010bc56
Requires -------- system-rules (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-11-headless) javapackages-filesystem mvn(junit:junit)
Provides -------- system-rules: mvn(com.github.stefanbirkner:system-rules) mvn(com.github.stefanbirkner:system-rules:pom:) system-rules
Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- srpm/system-rules.spec 2022-02-02 21:58:50.885288158 +0100 +++ srpm-unpacked/system-rules.spec 2021-10-23 12:09:36.000000000 +0200 @@ -33,10 +33,10 @@ %pom_xpath_inject pom:project '<groupId>com.github.stefanbirkner</groupId>'
-# add version to remove warning about unversioned plugin -%pom_xpath_inject 'pom:plugin[pom:artifactId = "maven-surefire-plugin"]' '<version>3.0.0-M5</version>' - # remove forkMode (deprecated) %pom_xpath_remove 'pom:plugin[pom:artifactId = "maven-surefire-plugin"]/pom:configuration/pom:forkMode'
+# add version to remove warning about unversioned plugin +%pom_xpath_inject 'pom:plugin[pom:artifactId = "maven-surefire-plugin"]' '<version>3.0.0-M5</version>' + # alias for junit # this PR will solve this in the future: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/junit/pull-request/4
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1999177 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Java, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, C/C++, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, PHP, Python, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
-> APPROVED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999177
Robert Scheck redhat@linuxnetz.de changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|redhat-bugzilla@linuxnetz.d |redhat@linuxnetz.de |e |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999177 Bug 1999177 depends on bug 2005183, which changed state.
Bug 2005183 Summary: Review Request: fishbowl - A collection of helper methods for dealing with exceptions in Java 8 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2005183
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1999177
Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2022-03-08 07:57:58
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com