https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434749

--- Comment #1 from Nathan Scott nathans@redhat.com --- Updates for recent upstream release:

Spec URL: https://bintray.com/pcp/f25/download_file?file_path=si-units.spec SRPM URL: https://bintray.com/pcp/f25/download_file?file_path=si-units-0.6.5-1.fc25.sr...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434749

--- Comment #3 from Nathan Scott nathans@redhat.com --- Hi Johnny,

| Can you provide a koji build?

I don't believe so, as this package depends on other packages which are also not yet reviewed (uom-lib, uom-parent and uom-se)...

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434744 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434745 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434746

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434749

Lukas Berk lberk@redhat.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |lberk@redhat.com Flags| |fedora-review?

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434749

Lukas Berk lberk@redhat.com changed:

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

--- Comment #6 from Lukas Berk lberk@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: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 23 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/lberk/src/fedora- scm/review/review-si-units/licensecheck.txt Manually verified these files. Several properly list the license, which fedora-review didn't pick up. Others reference the top level LICENSE file (bsd3), upstream has already changed this to explicitly list all bsd3 in the headers for the next release.

[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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: 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: 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]: 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: [x]: 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 si- units-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Rpmlint ------- Checking: si-units-0.6.5-2.fc27.noarch.rpm si-units-javadoc-0.6.5-2.fc27.noarch.rpm si-units-0.6.5-2.fc27.src.rpm si-units.src:38: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 38) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output:

Requires -------- si-units (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(javax.measure:unit-api) mvn(tec.uom:uom-se)

si-units-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools

Provides -------- si-units: mvn(si.uom:si-parent:pom:) mvn(si.uom:si-quantity) mvn(si.uom:si-quantity:pom:) mvn(si.uom:si-units-java8) mvn(si.uom:si-units-java8:pom:) osgi(si.uom.si-quantity) osgi(si.uom.si-units-java8) si-units

si-units-javadoc: si-units-javadoc

Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/unitsofmeasurement/si-units/archive/0.6.5/si-units-0.6.5.... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f6340fb9873b2c5cd0cfa5f901ff2c4a43ac42f617561734671553ecf09c6ca2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f6340fb9873b2c5cd0cfa5f901ff2c4a43ac42f617561734671553ecf09c6ca2

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -n si-units 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=1434749

--- Comment #8 from Gwyn Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- (fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/si-units

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434749 Bug 1434749 depends on bug 1434746, which changed state.

Bug 1434746 Summary: Review Request: uom-se - Unit Standard (JSR 363) implementation for Java SE 8 and above https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434746

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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434749 Bug 1434749 depends on bug 1434744, which changed state.

Bug 1434744 Summary: Review Request: uom-lib - Java Units of Measurement Libraries (JSR 363) https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1434744

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