https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819460
Bug ID: 1819460 Summary: Review Request: swt-chart - Eclipse SWTChart Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: mat.booth@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/swt-chart.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/swt-chart-0.12.0-3.fc33.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: mbooth Description: SWTChart is a light-weight charting component for SWT.
This is an unretirement review, as required by https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Orphaned_package_that_need_new_maintainers#Cl...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819460
Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Link ID| |Fedora Pagure | |releng/issue/9371
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819460
Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |POST CC| |decathorpe@gmail.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |decathorpe@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Fabio Valentini decathorpe@gmail.com --- Bundling 0.10.0 as well is a bit ugly, but I'm fine with it if it works.
Are there nounit tests or are you just not running them?
Either way, package looks "fine" (for a Java package), so APPROVED.
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. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of 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]: 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 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
===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [-]: 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.
===== 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: swt-chart-0.12.0-3.fc33.noarch.rpm swt-chart-0.12.0-3.fc33.src.rpm swt-chart.src: W: invalid-url Source1: swt-chart-code-312-tags-0.10.0.zip 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_GB.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). perl: warning: Setting locale failed. perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings: LANGUAGE = (unset), LC_ALL = (unset), LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8", LANG = "en_GB.UTF-8" are supported and installed on your system. perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C"). swt-chart.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://projects.eclipse.org/projects/science.swtchart <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/eclipse/swtchart/archive/REL-0.12.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1994c8657a507ad14ae8b9e34600bd1b309e3c9be04b8f73156b1d3755d9542f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1994c8657a507ad14ae8b9e34600bd1b309e3c9be04b8f73156b1d3755d9542f
Requires -------- swt-chart (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem
Provides -------- swt-chart: mvn(org.eclipse.swtchart:org.eclipse.swtchart) mvn(org.eclipse.swtchart:org.eclipse.swtchart.extensions) osgi(org.eclipse.swtchart) osgi(org.eclipse.swtchart.extensions) swt-chart
Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1819460 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Java Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell, Perl, Python, C/C++, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819460
--- Comment #2 from Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #1)
Bundling 0.10.0 as well is a bit ugly, but I'm fine with it if it works.
Are there nounit tests or are you just not running them?
There are tests, but I never managed to make them work in koji's headless build environment
Either way, package looks "fine" (for a Java package), so APPROVED.
Many thanks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1819460
Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2020-04-01 17:03:03
--- Comment #3 from Mat Booth mat.booth@redhat.com --- Built for F32/F33
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com