https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
Bug ID: 1276632 Summary: Review Request: geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api - Apache Geronimo JCDI Spec 1.1 Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puntogil@libero.it QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api-1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: Apache Geronimo implementation of the JSR-346 Context and Dependency Injection 1.1, 1.2 Specification Fedora Account System Username: gil
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11638674
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
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=1276632
--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api-1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
--- Comment #2 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- gil's scratch build of geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api-1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11727247
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1306675
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1306675 [Bug 1306675] bval-1.1.1 is available
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
--- Comment #3 from Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org --- 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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jonny/tmp/1276632-geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api/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 [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. I assume that it does not conflict with geronimo-jcdi-1.0-api that you also maintain.
[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. [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 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]: 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
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 geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api-javadoc [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [?]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api-1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api-javadoc-1.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api-1.0-1.fc26.src.rpm geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires -------- geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools
geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools
Provides -------- geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api: geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-jcdi_1.1_spec) mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-jcdi_1.1_spec:pom:) osgi(org.apache.geronimo.specs.geronimo-jcdi_1.1_spec)
geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api-javadoc: geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api-javadoc
Source checksums ---------------- http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/geronimo/specs/geronimo-jcdi_1.1_sp... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f768a22fd9e148d4fa27b581692a95a889d173f6d95af8ddd4fde5bfa0bd0ad3 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f768a22fd9e148d4fa27b581692a95a889d173f6d95af8ddd4fde5bfa0bd0ad3
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1276632 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=1276632
Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org --- Review approved!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Thanks for the review!
create new SCM requests: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/8667
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
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=1276632
--- Comment #6 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |CLOSED Fixed In Version| |geronimo-jcdi-1.1-api-1.0-1 | |.fc26 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2016-11-14 11:47:34
--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16450476
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
--- Comment #8 from Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org --- Can you review bug 1395867 ?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #8)
Can you review bug 1395867 ?
Sure, i'm starting now
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276632
--- Comment #10 from Jonny Heggheim jonnyheggheim@sigaint.org --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9)
Sure, i'm starting now
Thanks
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org