https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
Bug ID: 989014 Summary: Review Request: jdf-stacks-client - JBoss Stacks Parser Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: gerard@ryan.lt QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jdf-stacks-client/1.0.1-1/jdf-stacks-client.... SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jdf-stacks-client/1.0.1-1/jdf-stacks-client-... Description: This project contains a full stacks client with parser capabilities and other features like download, proxy and local cache.
Fedora Account System Username: galileo
This is a dependency for JBoss Tools.
Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5661794
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
Gerard Ryan gerard@ryan.lt changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
Gerard Ryan gerard@ryan.lt changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |989106
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |puntogil@libero.it Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |puntogil@libero.it Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it ---
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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jdf-stacks- client-javadoc [x]: Package complies to the 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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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).
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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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]: 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]: 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 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: jdf-stacks-client-1.0.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm jdf-stacks-client-javadoc-1.0.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm jdf-stacks-client.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) JBoss -> J Boss, Boss jdf-stacks-client.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jdf-stacks-client.noarch: W: no-documentation jdf-stacks-client-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jdf-stacks-client-javadoc jdf-stacks-client jdf-stacks-client-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jdf-stacks-client.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) JBoss -> J Boss, Boss jdf-stacks-client.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403: Forbidden jdf-stacks-client.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires -------- jdf-stacks-client-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
jdf-stacks-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging) mvn(org.yaml:snakeyaml)
Provides -------- jdf-stacks-client-javadoc: jdf-stacks-client-javadoc
jdf-stacks-client: jdf-stacks-client mvn(org.jboss.jdf:stacks-client)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stacks-client/archive/35d75868aa98807b69ae7... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 37b0e60bfea5ca128006151612fbdcb2ceb9d8c1a0dd948aafbedcdeddee0f4b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 37b0e60bfea5ca128006151612fbdcb2ceb9d8c1a0dd948aafbedcdeddee0f4b
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 989014 -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Problem(s): [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. please, can ask if upstream to include license text file? [!]: Latest version is packaged. https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stacks-client/archive/1.0.2.CR2.tar.gz is available, consider upgrading why dont use https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stacks-client/archive/1.0.1.Final.tar.gz ? regards
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
--- Comment #2 from Gerard Ryan gerard@ryan.lt --- Thanks for the review! :)
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1)
Problem(s): [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. please, can ask if upstream to include license text file?
Done. I've created a PR on Github to include it: https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stacks-client/pull/5
[!]: Latest version is packaged. https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stacks-client/archive/1.0.2.CR2.tar.gz is available, consider upgrading
I haven't packaged 1.0.2.CR2 because I think CR2 is probably considered a pre-release. Since I don't need anything specifically from the pre-release, I think having the latest 'Final'/stable is better for now. When 1.0.2.Final is released, I'll be sure to update to that :)
why dont use https://github.com/jboss-jdf/jdf-stacks-client/archive/1.0.1.Final.tar.gz ? regards
I've done it this way because of the recommendations for using github tarballs as sources.
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Github
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
Gerard Ryan gerard@ryan.lt changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #3 from Gerard Ryan gerard@ryan.lt --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jdf-stacks-client Short Description: JBoss Stacks Parser Owners: galileo Branches: f19 InitialCC:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
--- Comment #4 from Dennis Gilmore dennis@ausil.us --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jdf-stacks-client-1.0.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jdf-stacks-client-1.0.1-1.fc19
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jdf-stacks-client-1.0.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
Gerard Ryan gerard@ryan.lt changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=989014
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |jdf-stacks-client-1.0.1-1.f | |c19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2013-08-06 19:32:18
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- jdf-stacks-client-1.0.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla