Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: objenesis - A library for instantiating Java objects
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Summary: Review Request: objenesis - A library for instantiating Java objects Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: guido.grazioli@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/objenesis/objenesis.spec SRPM URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/objenesis/objenesis-1.2-1.fc1... Description: Java supports dynamic instantiation of classes using Class.newInstance(). However, this only works if the class has an appropriate constructor. There are many times when a class cannot be instantiated this way, such as when the class contains: * Constructors that require arguments. * Constructors that have side effects. * Constructors that throw exceptions. As a result, it is common to see restrictions in libraries stating that classes must require a default constructor. Objenesis aims to overcome these restrictions by bypassing the constructor on object instantiation. Needing to instantiate an object without calling the constructor is a fairly specialized task, however there are certain cases when this is useful: * Serialization, Remoting and Persistence - Objects need to be instantiated and restored to a specific state, without invoking code. * Proxies, AOP Libraries and Mock Objects - Classes can be subclassed without needing to worry about the super() constructor. * Container Frameworks - Objects can be dynamically instantiated in non-standard ways.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends on| |590680
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Bug 590681 depends on bug 590680, which changed state.
Bug 590680 Summary: Review Request: maven-license-plugin - Maven plugin to update header licenses of source files https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590680
What |Old Value |New Value ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183(FE-JAVASIG)
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |akurtako@redhat.com
--- Comment #1 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2010-11-18 15:39:34 EST --- Guido, Do you still want someone to do the review?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
--- Comment #2 from Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com 2010-11-18 16:15:05 EST --- Sure, objenesis 1.2 is still the latest release, but the specfile needs updates for the brand new guidelines and i dont know if it currently builds on rawhide as i only use it on a f13. Will follow up as soon i have things sorted
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard| |NotReady
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
--- Comment #3 from Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com 2011-01-17 18:42:05 EST --- objenesis build in rawhide is now fixed:
koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2727346 specfile: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/objenesis/objenesis.spec SRPM: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/objenesis/objenesis-1.2-3.fc1...
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
--- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-01-18 03:02:30 EST --- Few comments: * Drop buildroot * Drop clean section * Don't install versioned jars * Do we really need maven2-settings.xml and all the sed edits? * Does it build with maven 3? If yes please switch to using it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
--- Comment #5 from Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com 2011-02-04 08:26:41 EST --- (In reply to comment #4)
Few comments:
- Drop buildroot
- Drop clean section
- Don't install versioned jars
- Do we really need maven2-settings.xml and all the sed edits?
- Does it build with maven 3? If yes please switch to using it.
ok i did a major cleanup of the specfile and tested the build with maven3, which completed successfully: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2761796 (maven2 is still pulled in the package sack for some dependency though)
SPEC and SRPM: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/objenesis/
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status Whiteboard|NotReady |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-02-17 13:47:30 EST --- I'll do this one.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
--- Comment #7 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-02-17 14:11:30 EST --- Package Review ==============
Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated
=== REQUIRED ITEMS === [x] Rpmlint output: objenesis.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US newInstance -> new Instance, new-instance, instance objenesis.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subclassed -> subclasses, sub classed, sub-classed objenesis.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/objenesis Not a problem [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [x] Buildroot definition is not present [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: MIT in spec, ASL 2.0 actually [-] 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 %doc. [-] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [x] Package uses %global not %define [x] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly)
=== Maven === [x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms [!] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment! Please comment [-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven2.jpp.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment [x] Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x] Packages have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils (for %update_maven_depmap macro)
=== Other suggestions === [x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x] Latest version is packaged.
=== Issues === 1. License field in the spec is wrong. 2. Please comment why tests are skipped 3. Please mvn-rpmbuild instead of mvn-local it is supposed to exactly what we need for rpm builds.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
--- Comment #8 from Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com 2011-02-24 04:38:17 EST --- Thanks, fixed. SPEC and SRPM: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/objenesis/
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-02-24 04:51:42 EST --- Looks good.
APPROVED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183(FE-JAVASIG) |
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #10 from Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com 2011-02-24 09:35:32 EST --- New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: objenesis Short Description: A library for instantiating Java objects Owners: guidograzioli Branches: F-14 F-15 InitialCC: java-sig
Thanks
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
--- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-02-24 13:26:38 EST --- This ticket is not assigned to anyone. It should be assigned to the reviewer.
Please fix and re-raise the fedora-cvs flag.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |akurtako@redhat.com
--- Comment #12 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-02-24 13:35:56 EST --- Sorry about that, I forgot to assign the bug to me.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #13 from Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com 2011-02-24 14:37:00 EST --- It passed unnoticed under my eyes too, sorry for that.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
--- Comment #14 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2011-02-24 22:09:31 EST --- Git done (by process-git-requests).
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
--- Comment #15 from Alexander Kurtakov akurtako@redhat.com 2011-03-23 09:33:14 EDT --- Guido, would you please close the bug if you have built it?
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |orion@cora.nwra.com
--- Comment #16 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2011-05-05 01:29:57 EDT --- Guido - looks like a F15 build has been done, but you need to submit an update. Please do so. I need objenesis for some stuff I'm looking to package.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |MODIFIED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-05-09 07:23:44 EDT --- objenesis-1.2-7.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/objenesis-1.2-7.fc15
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed| |2011-05-09 07:25:21
--- Comment #18 from Guido Grazioli guido.grazioli@gmail.com 2011-05-09 07:25:21 EDT --- build done, closing
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
--- Comment #19 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org 2011-06-02 14:51:59 EDT --- objenesis-1.2-7.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=590681
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Fixed In Version| |objenesis-1.2-7.fc15 Resolution|NEXTRELEASE |ERRATA
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org