https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
Bug ID: 2222023 Summary: Review Request: apache-commons-vfs - Commons Virtual File System Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: loganjerry@gmail.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-vfs/apache-commons-vfs.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-vfs/apache-commons-vfs-2.9.0-... Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: This package was previously in Fedora, but was retired after being orphaned. More than 6 weeks have elapsed, so a new review is required.
Commons VFS provides a single API for accessing various file systems. It presents a uniform view of the files from various sources, such as the files on local disk, on an HTTP server, or inside a Zip archive.
Some of the features of Commons VFS are: * A single consistent API for accessing files of different types. * Support for numerous file system types. * Caching of file information. Caches information in-JVM, and optionally can cache remote file information on the local file system (replicator). * Event delivery. * Support for logical file systems made up of files from various file systems. * Utilities for integrating Commons VFS into applications, such as a VFS-aware ClassLoader and URLStreamHandlerFactory. * A set of VFS-enabled Ant tasks.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://commons.apache.org/ | |proper/commons-vfs/
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6161695 (succeeded)
Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-rev...
Please take a look if any issues were found.
--- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service
If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |didiksupriadi41@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |didiksupriadi41@gmail.com Whiteboard| |Unretirement Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com ---
Package Review
Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to get additional checks
- Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/apache-commons-vfs See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
this review is unretirement.
- Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies
there are bundled jar, but they're not packaged.
===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache-2.0", "Unknown or generated". 116 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora/didiksupriadi41/2222023-apache-commons- vfs/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ant.d
I'm not sure about this one. /etc/ant.d is currently owned by ant.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs
Do you think it would be appropriate to use '%config(noreplace)' in this context? (I'm not entirely sure in my own judgment)
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: apache-commons-vfs (description)
the warning is shown below. moving %javadoc_package macro to a position immediately preceding %prep should fix it.
[-]: 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 71680 bytes in 2 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 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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr. [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
===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in apache- commons-vfs-examples , apache-commons-vfs-project [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: apache-commons-vfs-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm apache-commons-vfs-ant-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm apache-commons-vfs-examples-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm apache-commons-vfs-project-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm apache-commons-vfs-2.9.0-1.fc39.src.rpm =========================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpkn_8sdia')] checks: 31, packages: 5
apache-commons-vfs.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %javadoc_package apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: no-documentation apache-commons-vfs-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation apache-commons-vfs-project.noarch: W: no-documentation apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs ============================================ 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ============================================
Rpmlint (installed packages)
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 4
apache-commons-vfs-project.noarch: W: no-documentation apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: no-documentation apache-commons-vfs-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums
https://downloads.apache.org/commons/KEYS : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4230519a17c7106b4e18cf199dc7224302ac7a225d3a86963d253dd92b8fc638 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4230519a17c7106b4e18cf199dc7224302ac7a225d3a86963d253dd92b8fc638 https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/source/commons-vfs-2.9.0-src.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f627c999b2d580db3dbf7305a94ae04f7a3467c33a40a284048157d6ecf69011 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f627c999b2d580db3dbf7305a94ae04f7a3467c33a40a284048157d6ecf69011 https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/source/commons-vfs-2.9.0-src.tar... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3ffa6826aba58316cdee0b89eac67300f14ddea13669fdf72ee6f858b880000f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ffa6826aba58316cdee0b89eac67300f14ddea13669fdf72ee6f858b880000f
Requires
apache-commons-vfs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless) javapackages-filesystem mvn(commons-logging:commons-logging) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3)
apache-commons-vfs-ant (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): apache-commons-vfs config(apache-commons-vfs-ant)
apache-commons-vfs-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless) javapackages-filesystem mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient)
apache-commons-vfs-project (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless) javapackages-filesystem mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-parent:pom:) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin)
Provides
apache-commons-vfs: apache-commons-vfs apache-commons-vfs2 mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs) mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs:pom:) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2:pom:) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs:pom:) osgi(org.apache.commons.vfs2)
apache-commons-vfs-ant: apache-commons-vfs-ant config(apache-commons-vfs-ant)
apache-commons-vfs-examples: apache-commons-vfs-examples mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs-examples) mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs-examples:pom:) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs-examples) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs-examples:pom:) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-examples) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-examples:pom:) osgi(org.apache.commons.vfs2)
apache-commons-vfs-project: apache-commons-vfs-project mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-project:pom:)
Jar and class files in source
./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2222023 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Java Disabled plugins: R, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you for the review!
(In reply to Didik Supriadi from comment #2)
[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ant.d
I'm not sure about this one. /etc/ant.d is currently owned by ant.
Hmmm, apache-commons-vfs-ant does not have "Requires: ant". I think that is wrong. I have added it.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs
Do you think it would be appropriate to use '%config(noreplace)' in this context? (I'm not entirely sure in my own judgment)
I'm not sure either, but I added it.
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: apache-commons-vfs (description)
the warning is shown below. moving %javadoc_package macro to a position immediately preceding %prep should fix it.
Thanks! I have moved it.
I have uploaded new spec and srpm files to the same URLs as before.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com --- LGTM, approved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
Didik Supriadi didiksupriadi41@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
--- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com --- Thank you!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |MODIFIED
--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1 *` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1
See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2023-07-22 01:21:46
--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org