https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
Bug ID: 1331589 Summary: Review Request: multibit-commons - Classes and libraries to support MultiBit projects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: hegjon@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons-1.1.0-1.fc2... Description: MultiBit Commons contains classes and libraries to support MultiBit projects.
Fedora Account System Username: jonny
A support library for the MultiBit HD bitcoin client
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Depends On| |1330316
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316 [Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
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=1331589
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Build fails: [ERROR] Plugin org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin:2.4 or one of its dependencies could not be resolved: Cannot access central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin:jar:2.4 has not been downloaded from it before. -> [Help 1]
Please, add the missing plugin in the BR list or remove it
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Please, remove also org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin is not available and add org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-release-plugin
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Removed plugins org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin and org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin. Added BR org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-release-plugin.
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons-1.1.0-1.fc2...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Please, is a suggestion, use bcpg-jdk15on instead of bcpg-jdk16. because this last is only an alias
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it 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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- have you time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1346382 ? (priority is low)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #6 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1331589-multibit-commons/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: 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 [-]: 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. [x]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 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]: 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 jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [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)
Maven: [x]: 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 attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in multibit-commons-javadoc [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [-]: %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.
Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: multibit-commons-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm multibit-commons-javadoc-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm multibit-commons-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Requires -------- multibit-commons-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools
multibit-commons (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(ch.qos.logback:logback-classic) mvn(com.google.code.findbugs:annotations) mvn(com.google.guava:guava) mvn(joda-time:joda-time) mvn(org.bitcoinj:bitcoinj-core) mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcpg-jdk16) mvn(org.slf4j:jul-to-slf4j) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api)
Provides -------- multibit-commons-javadoc: multibit-commons-javadoc
multibit-commons: multibit-commons mvn(org.multibit:commons) mvn(org.multibit:commons:pom:)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bitcoin-solutions/multibit-commons/archive/1.1.0.tar.gz#/... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5a653f2b570b2c23d7caddd39406669c92b69df4155af389a7d2d4b19004cd17 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a653f2b570b2c23d7caddd39406669c92b69df4155af389a7d2d4b19004cd17
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1331589 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -L /home/gil/deps Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Built with local dependencies: ~/deps/bitcoinj-0.14.3-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com ---
Please, is a suggestion, use bcpg-jdk15on instead of bcpg-jdk16. because this last is only an alias
Updated
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Issues:
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1331589-multibit-commons/licensecheck.txt
license field should be: MIT and GPLv2+
GPL ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/sntp/NtpMessage.java
These files are without license headers: ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/concurrent/SafeExecutors.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/concurrent/SafeScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/concurrent/SafeThreadPoolExecutor.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/crypto/AESUtils.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/crypto/ECUtils.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/crypto/PGPUtils.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/files/SecureFiles.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/utils/Dates.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/utils/HttpsUtils.java ./src/test/java/org/multibit/commons/utils/DatesTest.java
Please, report the problem to upstream. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/Li...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2016-07-05 18:19:56
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |--- Keywords| |Reopened
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #9 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Ups, closed the wrong ticket, setting the status back to assigned
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #10 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com ---
have you time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1346382 ? (priority is low)
I will start on it after I have finished this ticket.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589 Bug 1331589 depends on bug 1330316, which changed state.
Bug 1330316 Summary: Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #11 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com ---
Please, report the problem to upstream.
Added a new issue here: https://github.com/keepkey/multibit-commons/issues/2
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #12 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com ---
license field should be: MIT and GPLv2+
Fixed + updated the URL and Source0 to keepkey.
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons-1.1.0-1.fc2...
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #13 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com ---
have you time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1346382 ? (priority is low)
I will start on it after I have finished this ticket.
It have been reviewed, just let me know if you want me to review another ticket
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
--- Comment #15 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/multibit-commons
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #13)
have you time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1346382 ? (priority is low)
I will start on it after I have finished this ticket.
It have been reviewed, just let me know if you want me to review another ticket
thanks, i have these for upgrade apache cxf [1] but at the moment i would grant me with the maintainer of the various aries packages already present in Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347973 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347975 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347976 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347977 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347980 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348146
... and are not all still here ...
[1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276555
Approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed|2016-07-05 18:19:56 |2016-07-07 16:21:59
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org