Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: overholt@redhat.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/emma.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/emma-2.0-0.5312.2jpp.1.fc8.src.rpm Description: EMMA is an open-source toolkit for measuring and reporting Java code coverage. EMMA distinguishes itself from other tools by going after a unique feature combination: support for large-scale enterprise software development while keeping individual developer's work fast and iterative.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
overholt@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO| |444512 nThis| |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
fitzsim@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |rafaels@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-05-27 21:00 EST ------- *** Bug 227052 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-05-27 23:15 EST ------- - MUST: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted...
$ rpmlint SRPMS/emma-2.0-0.5312.2jpp.1.fc9.src.rpm
OK
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/emma-2.0-0.5312.2jpp.1.fc9.noarch.rpm emma.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/emma
Explain
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/emma-javadoc-2.0-0.5312.2jpp.1.fc9.noarch.rpm
OK
- MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guideli...
OK
- MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the fo...
OK
- MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK. Do you want to leave the Epoch tag?
- MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and m...
OK
- MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual ...
OK
- MUST: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the lice...
OK
- MUST: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK
- MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. If the reviewer is...
OK
- MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream sou...
OK
- MUST: The package must successfully compile and build into binary rpms ...
OK
- MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an...
OK
- MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except fo...
OK
- MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using...
OK
- MUST: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not j...
OK
- MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must s...
OK
- MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does no...
What package should own %{_datadir}/maven2 and %{_datadir}/maven2/poms? They're unowned on my Fedora 9 system.
- MUST: A package must not contain any duplicate files in the %files list...
OK
- MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be ...
The base defattr line should use '-' for permissions.
- MUST: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{...
OK
- MUST: Each package must consistently use macros, as described in the [w...
OK
- MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content. This is de...
OK
- MUST: Large documentation files should go in a -doc subpackage. (The de...
OK
- MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the r...
OK
- MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package.
OK
- MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package.
OK
- MUST: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfi...
OK
- MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so...
OK
- MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the ba...
OK
- MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these should ...
OK
- MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.deskt...
OK
- MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other...
%{_mavendepmapfragdir} is owned by other packages.
- MUST: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buil...
OK
- MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
OK
- SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a sep...
OK
- SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file s...
OK
- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. See [...
fedora-9-i386 mock build fails.
- SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all su...
OK on i386
- SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as describe...
emma -help works
- SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is ...
OK
- SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base p...
javadoc doesn't require base package but that's expected.
- SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase,...
OK
- SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sb...
OK
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-05-27 23:16 EST ------- Created an attachment (id=306881) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=306881&action=view) mock fedora-9-i386 build log with ant -d
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
overholt@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dbhole@redhat.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fitzsim@redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From overholt@redhat.com 2008-05-28 09:10 EST ------- Huh, how did this build for me? Weird. I'll investigate. In the meantime, I've fixed the file permissions and added maven2 as a dependency (which owns the maven directories):
http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/emma.spec
Deepak: can you please comment on the maven pom file being in /etc somewhere (the rpmlint warning listed in comment #2)?
Reassigning to Tom as he's taking this.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
------- Additional Comments From overholt@redhat.com 2008-05-28 10:53 EST ------- Okay, I figured out why it was failing to build: ecj doesn't accept -source 1.2 whereas OpenJDK's javac does. The following will fail with ecj and not with OpenJDK:
cd /tmp echo "public class Test444511 { public static void main(String[] args) { \ System.out.println("Hello, world"); } } > Test444511.java javac -source 1.2 -target 1.2 Test444511.java
If I change build.target to 1.3 in build.xml, I get further but end at an import of:
sun.misc.Signal
Seeing as the chances of a change in this area going upstream are slim (there's been no traffic on the bug I filed about their closed source jar they use for building the jar timestamp -- see the URL in the .spec), I'm just going to BR javac >= 1.6.
New spec and SRPM (also fixing maven ownership issues):
http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/emma.spec http://fedorapeople.org/~overholt/emma-2.0-0.5312.2jpp.2.fc9.src.rpm
Also, I spoke with Deepak on IRC and he said to waive the rpmlint warning 'cause that's the place that maven poms go. I've filed bug #448736 to track the maven rpmlint warning issue.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
fitzsim@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review+
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
overholt@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From overholt@redhat.com 2008-05-28 13:58 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: emma Short Description: Java code coverage tool Owners: overholt Branches: F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@redhat.com 2008-05-28 14:04 EST ------- I confirmed the new SRPM builds in fedora-9-i386 mock.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-05-30 15:35 EST ------- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: emma - Java code coverage tool
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|fitzsim@redhat.com |langel@redhat.com
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=444511
Andrew Overholt overholt@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla