https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434745

Nathan Scott nathans@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG), | |1429804

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=1429804 [Bug 1429804] Review Request: parfait - Java libraries for Performance Co-Pilot (PCP)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434745

Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434745

Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1434749

Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434749 [Bug 1434749] Review Request: si-units - International System of Units (JSR 363)

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434745

--- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jonny/tmp/review-uom-parent/licensecheck.txt [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

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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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: uom-parent-1.0.3-2.fc27.noarch.rpm uom-parent-1.0.3-2.fc27.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Requires -------- uom-parent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools

Provides -------- uom-parent: mvn(tec.uom:uom-parent:pom:) uom-parent

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/unitsofmeasurement/uom-parent/archive/1.0.3/uom-parent-1.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 146b4670d9f42008fcdbac7b99326df3b74c6e64be53896ea63c7d6ee2d1a6c3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 146b4670d9f42008fcdbac7b99326df3b74c6e64be53896ea63c7d6ee2d1a6c3

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n uom-parent Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434745

Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com changed:

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

--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim hegjon@gmail.com --- Review approved

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434745

--- Comment #6 from Nathan Scott nathans@redhat.com --- | Can you review bug 1464797? Just a simple package with no build. Thanks

Hi Jonny, I'm just about to walk out the door for a couple weeks vacation - I will take a look when I get back though. Please remind me if you don't hear from me; I'll be under a mail cloud for awhile, but would like to return the favour. Thanks!

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434745

Nathan Scott nathans@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2017-09-01 04:09:38