https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228503

gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1215061

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1215061 [Bug 1215061] springframework-batch-2.2.7.RELEASE is available

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228503

--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-amqp.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-amqp-1.3.9-1.fc22.src.rpm

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10514538

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228503

Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner projects.rg@smart.ms --- 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 25 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1228503-springframework- amqp/licensecheck.txt => OK, License: ASL 2.0 [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in springframework-amqp-javadoc => Package is noarch and documentation. Bug in fedora-review. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [?]: %check is present and all tests pass. => tests get removed when without jinterface [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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: springframework-amqp-1.3.9-1.fc24.noarch.rpm springframework-amqp-javadoc-1.3.9-1.fc24.noarch.rpm springframework-amqp-1.3.9-1.fc24.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: Datei oder Verzeichnis nicht gefunden 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

=> Bug??

Requires -------- springframework-amqp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(com.rabbitmq:amqp-client) mvn(org.springframework.retry:spring-retry) mvn(org.springframework:spring-context) mvn(org.springframework:spring-core) mvn(org.springframework:spring-tx)

springframework-amqp-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils

Provides -------- springframework-amqp: mvn(org.springframework.amqp:spring-amqp) mvn(org.springframework.amqp:spring-amqp:pom:) mvn(org.springframework.amqp:spring-rabbit) mvn(org.springframework.amqp:spring-rabbit:pom:) osgi(org.springframework.amqp.spring-amqp) osgi(org.springframework.amqp.spring-rabbit) springframework-amqp

springframework-amqp-javadoc: springframework-amqp-javadoc

Source checksums ---------------- http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/amqp/spring-erlang/1.3.9.R... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 390669c1dcf9b217d39aee86159ab148e713349d8fd45afd34104af15b08bf5c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 390669c1dcf9b217d39aee86159ab148e713349d8fd45afd34104af15b08bf5c http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/amqp/spring-rabbit/1.3.9.R... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 42fce6bfab1957ffdc0bb06f7c2e8b1fe337e295e6438326cd54e6c82b841a27 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 42fce6bfab1957ffdc0bb06f7c2e8b1fe337e295e6438326cd54e6c82b841a27 https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-amqp/archive/v1.3.9.RELEASE.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 782cca5914521c640d01f68e96210a7b06ec7daf834180f48d59c385cc33ea20 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 782cca5914521c640d01f68e96210a7b06ec7daf834180f48d59c385cc33ea20 http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/amqp/spring-amqp/1.3.9.REL... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f1b44e2be5f9866214fea653baa5e8363d78ab6333a74bab0727fc1cfc190525 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f1b44e2be5f9866214fea653baa5e8363d78ab6333a74bab0727fc1cfc190525

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1228503 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228503

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=1228503

--- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests).

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228503

--- Comment #5 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- springframework-amqp-1.3.9-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 23. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/springframework-amqp-1.3.9-1.fc23

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228503

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA

--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- springframework-amqp-1.3.9-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228503

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |1.3.9-1.fc23 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2015-09-03 23:24:57

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228503

Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version|1.3.9-1.fc23 |1.3.9-1.fc22

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228503 Bug 1228503 depends on bug 1231430, which changed state.

Bug 1231430 Summary: Missing jinterface maven metadata https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1231430

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|CLOSED |NEW Resolution|EOL |---