https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
Bug ID: 2313339 Summary: Review Request: adoptium-temurin-java-repository - Third party repository providing temurin java Product: Fedora Version: rawhide OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: jvanek@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/adoptium-temurin-java-repository/adoptium-te... SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/adoptium-temurin-java-repository/adoptium-te... Description: This package adds configuration to add a remote repository of https://adoptium.net/installation/linux/#_centosrhelfedora_instructions , if third-party repositories are enabled on a Fedora Linux system. This repository contains all JDKS which are live and not available in fedora as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks . Fedora Account System Username: jvanek
This is one of the initial, and fundamental step for soon-to-be-published https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks
Reproducible: Always
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #1 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- There seems to be some problem with the following file. SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/adoptium-temurin-java-repository/adoptium-te... Fetching it results in a 404 Not Found error. Please make sure the URL is correct and publicly available.
--- 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=2313339
--- Comment #2 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com --- The fedora packaging guidelines for 3rd party repos - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Third_Party_Repository_Policy/ - suggests to set `enabled_metadata=1 ` for higher visibility. I did so, and I have no idea what it does. It seesm to do nothing. ... Thoughts? Also I see the new repository in gnome software in normal repositories, not in 3rd party. Again, am not sure why. Thoughts?
This package shoud nto go to stable untill the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks is approved (or disaproved, in that case this package should not go in)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #3 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/adoptium-temurin-java-repository/adoptium-te... SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/adoptium-temurin-java-repository/adoptium-te... Description: This package adds configuration to add a remote repository of https://adoptium.net/installation/linux/#_centosrhelfedora_instructions , if third-party repositories are enabled on a Fedora Linux system. This repository contains all JDKS which are live and not available in fedora as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks . Fedora Account System Username: jvanek
This is one of the initial, and fundamental step for soon-to-be-published https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- URL| |https://adoptium.net/instal | |lation/linux/#_centosrhelfe | |dora_instructions
--- Comment #4 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8031543 (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=2313339
--- Comment #5 from Thomas Fitzsimmons fitzsim@redhat.com --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #2)
The fedora packaging guidelines for 3rd party repos - https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/fesco/Third_Party_Repository_Policy/ - suggests to set `enabled_metadata=1 ` for higher visibility. I did so, and I have no idea what it does. It seesm to do nothing. ... Thoughts?
Can you see what gnome-software says if you a) set enabled_metadata=0, and b) remove the enabled_metadata line. I looked around a bit; I do not know the current status, but historically at least, it seems like enabled_metadata=1 was/is ignored by dnf, but not reported as an error. Then software higher up the stack checks for it; I saw references in gnome-software history and in PackageKit history, but no clear commentary on how it is supposed to work.
Also I see the new repository in gnome software in normal repositories, not in 3rd party. Again, am not sure why. Thoughts?
What happens here if enabled_metadata=0 or is deleted entirely?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #6 from Thomas Fitzsimmons fitzsim@redhat.com --- Here are a bunch of my initial thoughts:
- I don't know if the EPL applies to six lines of configuration. It seems weird to put any license on this.
- "To ensure this, repository files must initially include the enabled=0 (or equivalent) setting, and the user must explicitly enable third-party repositories to install from them. FESCo may grant an exception to waive this requirement."
I think you should apply to FESCo to have the Temurin repository enabled by default; the repos contain entirely Free Software (correct me if I am wrong here), and current users are used to "dnf install java-1.8.0-openjdk".
- As I mentioned in email, I would like to see Temurin use the "java-1.8.0-temurin" naming scheme. Are aliases (somewhere, not sure where) an option, such that "dnf install java-1.8.0-openjdk" maps to Temurin's equivalent 1.8.0 package?
- I don't typically like whitespace-aligning the fields in the header, because the alignment hard to maintain; either things drift out of alignment as fields are added or removed, or whitespace-only changes to the entire header are necessary to maintain alignment, which clutter history.
- Can you please use capitals where appropriate in the Summary line?
- The Summary should be more descriptive. For example:
$ rpm -qi fedora-repos-38-1.noarch|tail -n2 Description : Fedora package repository files for yum and dnf along with gpg public keys.
- Can you please clarify this comment? I think it is too vague:
# except tool owns also fedora-third-party/conf.d/ Requires: fedora-third-party
and it's a nit pick, but can you make comments start with a capital and take the form of a full sentence?
- I would probably just inline these and eliminate the extra two lines to set variables.
%global repodir yum.repos.d %global thirdparty lib/fedora-third-party/conf.d
Either that or go all the way:
%global thirdparty %{_prefix}/lib/fedora-third-party/conf.d/ %global repodir %{_sysconfdir}/yum.repos.d
but... just inline them.
- What does lib/fedora-third-party/conf.d do? It is not referenced in the upstream instructions. (I am only looking at the spec file so far, have not attempted reverse-engineering behaviours based on the contents of the SRPM)
- The description needs a lot of work. I don't like having to click the URL to see the package's entire contents to know what it does. Can you try rephrasing it?
- Can you get rid of all the extra newlines? It is too hard to maintain double-spacing consistently, so only ever use one blank line (maximum) to separate sections.
- Is there a Fedora packaging style guide for how to format RPM changelog entries? Should they start with a capital, for example?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |fitzsim@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #7 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com --- (In reply to Thomas Fitzsimmons from comment #6)
Here are a bunch of my initial thoughts:
- I don't know if the EPL applies to six lines of configuration. It seems
weird to put any license on this.
The temurins are EPL2. The repo maybe not. If that is case (and it seem avarage licence of repository packages in fedora is MIT). then I will switch to MIT. But there must be license.
- "To ensure this, repository files must initially include the enabled=0 (or
equivalent) setting, and the user must explicitly enable third-party repositories to install from them. FESCo may grant an exception to waive this requirement."
I think you should apply to FESCo to have the Temurin repository enabled by default; the repos contain entirely Free Software (correct me if I am wrong here), and current users are used to "dnf install java-1.8.0-openjdk".
Yup. I will be elaborating on it with them . I will be glad if it ends up with enabled=1. But for now, and for case of f41 and older port of this package, the zero should stay. (unless the exception is granted before this being approved)
- As I mentioned in email, I would like to see Temurin use the
"java-1.8.0-temurin" naming scheme. Are aliases (somewhere, not sure where) an option, such that "dnf install java-1.8.0-openjdk" maps to Temurin's equivalent 1.8.0 package?
That is issue we have tor rise in https://github.com/adoptium/installer/issues/ I think it can start with virtual provides. The rename may be quite conmplicated for them. But virtual provide is no issue. Added to https://github.com/adoptium/installer/issues/848#issuecomment-2133516101 and created https://github.com/adoptium/installer/issues/1008
- I don't typically like whitespace-aligning the fields in the header,
because the alignment hard to maintain; either things drift out of alignment as fields are added or removed, or whitespace-only changes to the entire header are necessary to maintain alignment, which clutter history.
Will try to do. Thanx!
- Can you please use capitals where appropriate in the Summary line?
Will try to do. Thanx!
- The Summary should be more descriptive. For example:
$ rpm -qi fedora-repos-38-1.noarch|tail -n2 Description : Fedora package repository files for yum and dnf along with gpg public keys.
Thanx. Will use.
- Can you please clarify this comment? I think it is too vague:
# except tool owns also fedora-third-party/conf.d/ Requires: fedora-third-party
and it's a nit pick, but can you make comments start with a capital and take the form of a full sentence?
eg: # fedora-third-party contains tools to work with 3rd party repos and owns fedora-third-party/conf.d/ directory ?
- I would probably just inline these and eliminate the extra two lines to
set variables.
%global repodir yum.repos.d %global thirdparty lib/fedora-third-party/conf.d
Either that or go all the way:
%global thirdparty %{_prefix}/lib/fedora-third-party/conf.d/ %global repodir %{_sysconfdir}/yum.repos.d
but... just inline them.
Especially those are dirs I do not trust so I would liek to keep them as macros. ok. If you like, I will use full paths as you suggests.
- What does lib/fedora-third-party/conf.d do? It is not referenced in the
upstream instructions. (I am only looking at the spec file so far, have not attempted reverse-engineering behaviours based on the contents of the SRPM)
I was advised to include it as you see it during original Fesco discussion. TBH, I'm not sure I understand its usage too.
- The description needs a lot of work. I don't like having to click the URL
to see the package's entire contents to know what it does. Can you try rephrasing it?
I will do my best, but feel free to advice.
- Can you get rid of all the extra newlines? It is too hard to maintain
double-spacing consistently, so only ever use one blank line (maximum) to separate sections.
Sure. All the double ones are error.
- Is there a Fedora packaging style guide for how to format RPM changelog
entries? Should they start with a capital, for example?
Nope. But thanx for hint. Will use auto chanmgelog and auto release (eg https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/mkoncek/rpms/java-runtime-decompiler/c/8c... , only without that extra file)
TYVVM!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #8 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com ---
- "To ensure this, repository files must initially include the enabled=0 (or
equivalent) setting, and the user must explicitly enable third-party repositories to install from them. FESCo may grant an exception to waive this requirement."
I think you should apply to FESCo to have the Temurin repository enabled by default; the repos contain entirely Free Software (correct me if I am wrong here), and current users are used to "dnf install java-1.8.0-openjdk".
Yup. I will be elaborating on it with them . I will be glad if it ends up with enabled=1. But for now, and for case of f41 and older port of this package, the zero should stay. (unless the exception is granted before this being approved)
I had added it to proposal: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks#Current_status
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #9 from Thomas Fitzsimmons fitzsim@redhat.com ---
- As I mentioned in email, I would like to see Temurin use the
"java-1.8.0-temurin" naming scheme. Are aliases (somewhere, not sure where) an option, such that "dnf install java-1.8.0-openjdk" maps to Temurin's equivalent 1.8.0 package?
That is issue we have tor rise in https://github.com/adoptium/installer/issues/ I think it can start with virtual provides. The rename may be quite conmplicated for them. But virtual provide is no issue. Added to https://github.com/adoptium/installer/issues/848#issuecomment-2133516101 and created https://github.com/adoptium/installer/issues/1008
OK, thanks. Virtual provides will further pre-complicate things, I think. Do we have a list of changes we want Adoptium to make that gates the inclusion of this repository package? I think there should be such a list, to avoid introducing backward-compatibility traps to Fedora. The inclusion of this repository package into Fedora constitutes an endorsement that Temurin packages are smoothly integrated, so any required smoothing should happen before this repository package is included. I suspect you are maintaining such a list, but I think we should copy it into this review.
- What does lib/fedora-third-party/conf.d do? It is not referenced in the
upstream instructions. (I am only looking at the spec file so far, have not attempted reverse-engineering behaviours based on the contents of the SRPM)
I was advised to include it as you see it during original Fesco discussion. TBH, I'm not sure I understand its usage too.
OK, can you figure it out why it is needed? And if not, or if it is not applicable, omit it? (Otherwise explain its need in the comment.)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #10 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com --- I had linked that list to you at least three times now: https://github.com/adoptium/installer/issues/848#issuecomment-2133516101 :)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #11 from Thomas Fitzsimmons fitzsim@redhat.com --- (In reply to jiri vanek from comment #10)
I had linked that list to you at least three times now: https://github.com/adoptium/installer/issues/848#issuecomment-2133516101 :)
OK, I will treat that list as authoritative, thanks; and thank you for confirming that the plan is that those items are addressed prior to adoptium-temurin-java-repository going into Fedora.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #13 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com --- Ok, all issues elaborated except the Description. I did only very minor changes to it. https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/adoptium-temurin-java-repository/v2/ (the original ones moved to https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/adoptium-temurin-java-repository/v1). Will add new comment for bot to process it.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #14 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/adoptium-temurin-java-repository/v2/adoptium... SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/adoptium-temurin-java-repository/v2/adoptium... Description: This package adds configuration to add a remote repository of https://adoptium.net/installation/linux/#_centosrhelfedora_instructions , if third-party repositories are enabled on a Fedora Linux system. This repository contains all JDKS which are live and not available in fedora as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks . Fedora Account System Username: jvanek
This is one of the initial, and fundamental step for soon-to-be-published https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #15 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com --- Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/adoptium-temurin-java-repository/v2/adoptium... SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/adoptium-temurin-java-repository/v2/adoptium... Summary: Fedora package repository files for yum and dnf along with gpg public keys. Description: This package adds configuration to add a remote repository of https://adoptium.net/installation/linux/#_centosrhelfedora_instructions , if third-party repositories are enabled on a Fedora Linux system. This repository contains all JDKS which are live and not available in fedora as per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks . Fedora Account System Username: jvanek
This is one of the initial, and fundamental step for soon-to-be-published https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/ThirdPartyLegacyJdks
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |adoptium-temurin-java-repos |adoptium-temurin-java-repos |itory - Third party |itory - Fedora package |repository providing |repository files for yum |temurin java |and dnf along with gpg | |public keys
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |AutomationTriaged
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8066381 (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=2313339
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Review Service fedora-review-bot@fedoraproject.org --- Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8066384 (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=2313339
--- Comment #18 from Thomas Fitzsimmons fitzsim@redhat.com --- I think we should resolve the policy decision first before adding logic like:
cat %{SOURCE2} | sed "s/^enabled=0/enabled=%{enabled_by_default}/" > %{reponame}
Resolve the policy, then hard-code the correct value. If the policy changes later, update the spec file to hard-code the new correct value. (I am pretty sure you want sed -i there instead, since I think what you have will blank the file.)
And I did not mean for you to copy "Fedora package repository files for yum and dnf along with gpg public keys." verbatim for the summary.
I will now put this review on the back burner until some of the policy decisions we discussed are made; they will affect the content of the spec file. If you need it to be approved sooner, feel free to assign it to someone else.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #19 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com --- (In reply to Thomas Fitzsimmons from comment #18)
I think we should resolve the policy decision first before adding logic like:
cat %{SOURCE2} | sed "s/^enabled=0/enabled=%{enabled_by_default}/" > %{reponame}
Resolve the policy, then hard-code the correct value. If the policy changes later, update the spec file to hard-code the new correct value. (I am
I added the logic in here, because the value may differ in individual versions. eg in f39,40and 41 it will be disabled. For f42 and f43 we get fesco exception and and it will be enbabled. In f44 we lost it again....
It seems to be more trackable from specile, as it is much more visible.
pretty sure you want sed -i there instead, since I think what you have will blank the file.)
Nope. I may be wrong, but modyfing the SOURCEx directly is considered bad practice (maybe it is even read only). In all specfiles I always met, a cpy was done when SOURCEx was about to chnage. Anyway it si not blank file :)
And I did not mean for you to copy "Fedora package repository files for yum and dnf along with gpg public keys." verbatim for the summary.
Then please suggests anything else. I did my best with original one. Yours seemed to be similarly correct, so it have one more vote.
I will now put this review on the back burner until some of the policy decisions we discussed are made; they will affect the content of the spec file. If you need it to be approved sooner, feel free to assign it to someone else.
ok. TYVM!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|fitzsim@redhat.com |jandrlik@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
--- Comment #20 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com --- The change is now approved: https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/3277
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
jandrlik jandrlik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #21 from jandrlik jandrlik@redhat.com --- This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text
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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jandrlik/2313339-adoptium-temurin- java-repository/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/yum.repos.d [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [-]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. -No sources. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. -Not a GUI app. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package -No development files. [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. -No %doc used. [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. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. -Package is not a rename of another package. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. -No Requires. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. -No need for systemd. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. -Package is compatible with all arches. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. No upstream for this package. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. No sources for this package. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Noarch package, no binary outputs for this one. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. It is just a repo addition package, no checks needed IMO. [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]: 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: adoptium-temurin-java-repository-1-1.fc42.noarch.rpm adoptium-temurin-java-repository-1-1.fc42.src.rpm ================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ================================================================================= rpmlint: 2.5.0 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/tmpmj7zspjt')] checks: 32, packages: 2
adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Fedora package repository files for yum and dnf along with gpg public keys. adoptium-temurin-java-repository.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot Fedora package repository files for yum and dnf along with gpg public keys. adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dnf', 'Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA') adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: E: spelling-error ('gpg', 'Summary(en_US) gpg -> pg, gig, gag') adoptium-temurin-java-repository.src: E: spelling-error ('dnf', 'Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA') adoptium-temurin-java-repository.src: E: spelling-error ('gpg', 'Summary(en_US) gpg -> pg, gig, gag') adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/yum.repos.d/adoptium-temurin-java-repository.repo adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: W: no-documentation adoptium-temurin-java-repository.spec:16: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab: line 1) ============================================= 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 6 warnings, 8 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.2 s ============================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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: 32, packages: 1
adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: W: summary-ended-with-dot Fedora package repository files for yum and dnf along with gpg public keys. adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: E: spelling-error ('dnf', 'Summary(en_US) dnf -> def, inf, DNA') adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: E: spelling-error ('gpg', 'Summary(en_US) gpg -> pg, gig, gag') adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/yum.repos.d/adoptium-temurin-java-repository.repo adoptium-temurin-java-repository.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings, 3 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Requires -------- adoptium-temurin-java-repository (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): fedora-third-party
Provides -------- adoptium-temurin-java-repository: adoptium-temurin-java-repository
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2313339 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Python, R, C/C++, Java, fonts, PHP, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |RELEASE_PENDING
--- Comment #23 from Fedora Admin user for bugzilla script actions fedora-admin-xmlrpc@fedoraproject.org --- The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/adoptium-temurin-java-repository
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2313339
jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|RELEASE_PENDING |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2024-10-21 11:45:32
--- Comment #24 from jiri vanek jvanek@redhat.com --- https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=125055184
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org