[Bug 1655697] New: Review Request: byte-buddy - Runtime code generation for the Java virtual machine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655697

Bug ID: 1655697
           Summary: Review Request: byte-buddy - Runtime code generation
                    for the Java virtual machine
           Product: Fedora
           Version: rawhide
         Component: Package Review
          Severity: medium
          Priority: medium
          Assignee: [e-mail]
          Reporter: [e-mail]
        QA Contact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/byte-buddy.spec
SRPM URL:
https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/byte-buddy-1.9.5-1.fc30.src.rpm

Description:

Byte Buddy is a code generation library for creating Java classes during the
runtime of a Java application and without the help of a compiler. Other than
the code generation utilities that ship with the Java Class Library, Byte Buddy
allows the creation of arbitrary classes and is not limited to implementing
interfaces for the creation of runtime proxies.

Fedora Account System Username: mbooth

[Bug 1655697] Review Request: byte-buddy - Runtime code generation for the Java virtual machine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655697

--- Comment #1 from Mat Booth  ---
Note that this package has a build-time self-dependency, so in order to build
it the first time, you have to pass "--with bootstrap" into mock.

Then you can install the resulting RPMs into the mock root and build as normal
a second time.

[Bug 1655697] Review Request: byte-buddy - Runtime code generation for the Java virtual machine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655697

Roland Grunberg  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
           Assignee|[e-mail]    |[e-mail]
              Flags|                            |fedora-review?

[Bug 1655697] Review Request: byte-buddy - Runtime code generation for the Java virtual machine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655697

Roland Grunberg  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Roland Grunberg  ---
The package is approved.

The following is mainly Jeff's reviewing of this package as he has submitted to
me. I have additionally built the package bootstrapped on non-bootstrapped on
fedora-rawhide-x86_64 and can confirm it builds successfully and as expected.

Y: MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the
build produces. The output should be posted in the review.[1]
    sh-4.4$ rpmlint byte-buddy.spec
        0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Y: MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming
Guidelines .
    Y: MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [2] .
    Y: MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
    Y: MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines .
    Y: MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license. [3]
    Y: MUST: 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 must be included in %license.[4]
    Y: MUST: The spec file must be written in American English. [5]
    Y: MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [6]
    Y: MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream
source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this
task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream
URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for
how to deal with this.
    Y: MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
on at least one primary architecture. [7]
    N/A MUST: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an
architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in
ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in
bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on
that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the
corresponding ExcludeArch line. [8]
    Y: MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for
any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ;
inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
    N/A: MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by
using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly
forbidden.[9]
    N/A: MUST: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared
library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths,
must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [10]
    Y: MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.[11]
    N/A: MUST: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must
state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for
relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is
considered a blocker. [12]
    Y: MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
    Y: MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
    N/A: MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be
set with executable permissions, for example. [15]
        Package uses mvn build macros which set up jars properly.
    Y: MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
    Y: MUST: The package must contain code, or permissible content. [17]
    Y: MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The
definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not
restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [18]
       Package has javadoc sub-package
    Y: MUST: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the
runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must
run properly if it is not present. [18]
    N/A: MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. [19]
    N/A: MUST: Development files must be in a -devel package. [20]
    N/A: MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the
base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} =
%{version}-%{release} [21]
    Y: MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be
removed in the spec if they are built.[19]
    N/A: MUST: Packages containing GUI applications must include a
%{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with
desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged
GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the
spec file with your explanation. [22]
    N/A: MUST: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by
other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be
installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely
upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share
ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man
package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory
that another package owns, then please present that at package review time.
[23]
    Y: MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [24]
    Y: MUST: Packages being added to the distribution MUST NOT depend on any
packages which have been marked as being deprecated. [25]

Important.png
SHOULD Items:
Items marked as SHOULD are things that the package (or reviewer) SHOULD do, but
is not required to do.

N/A: SHOULD: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[26]
    N/A: SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file
should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[27]
    Y: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [28]
    Y: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. [29]
    Y: SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as
described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
        This should be ok.  Package submitter is performing the testing.
    N/A: SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is
vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [30]
    N/A: SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base
package using a fully versioned dependency. [21]
        The sub-packages do not require the main package.
    N/A: SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their
usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a
-devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool
not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [31]
    Y: SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin,
/sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the
file instead of the file itself. [32]
    N/A: SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If
it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[33]
         Has Javadoc sub-package.

[Bug 1655697] Review Request: byte-buddy - Runtime code generation for the Java virtual machine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655697

--- Comment #3 from Mat Booth  ---
Thanks Roland, repo requested:
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/9132

[Bug 1655697] Review Request: byte-buddy - Runtime code generation for the Java virtual machine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655697

--- Comment #4 from Igor Gnatenko  ---
(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/byte-buddy

[Bug 1655697] Review Request: byte-buddy - Runtime code generation for the Java virtual machine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655697

Mat Booth  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|                            |652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #5 from Mat Booth  ---
*** Bug 1293694 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug

[Bug 1655697] Review Request: byte-buddy - Runtime code generation for the Java virtual machine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655697

Mat Booth  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version|                            |byte-buddy-1.9.5-2.fc30
         Resolution|---                         |RAWHIDE
        Last Closed|                            |2018-12-04 08:46:34

--- Comment #6 from Mat Booth  ---
Thanks,

Non-bootstrap build in progress:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=31264410

[Bug 1655697] Review Request: byte-buddy - Runtime code generation for the Java virtual machine

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1655697

Mat Booth  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG)         |

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug