https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214834
Bug ID: 2214834 Summary: Review Request: apache-logging-parent - parent JBoss Logging POM Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Hardware: All OS: Linux Status: NEW Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: ckelley@redhat.com QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org Target Milestone: --- Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ckelley/pki/fedora-rawhid... SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/ckelley/pki/fedora-rawhid... Description: Package needs unretiring as the jboss-logging upstream has switched to using that as its parent POM (from jboss-parent). Fedora Account System Username: ckelley
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214834
Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |manisandro@gmail.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |manisandro@gmail.com Flags| |fedora-review?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214834
Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Environment| |If this bug requires | |documentation, please | |select an appropriate Doc | |Type value. Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ Status|ASSIGNED |POST
--- Comment #1 from Sandro Mani manisandro@gmail.com --- Approved - the only potential issue I see is
[!]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant
The source zip contains a pom.xml. The guidelines [1] state "If upstream project is shipping Maven pom.xml files, these MUST be installed." Please verify before importing.
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_maven_pom_x...
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 License 2.0". 3 files have unknown license. [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. [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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 javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local
Maven: [!]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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: apache-logging-parent-9-1.fc39.noarch.rpm apache-logging-parent-9-1.fc39.src.rpm =========================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts ========================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpozv3m2p3')] checks: 31, packages: 2
apache-logging-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation ============================================================================ 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.3 s ===========================================================================
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 31, packages: 1
apache-logging-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums ---------------- https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/logging/logging-parent/9/logging-p... : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3c39e1e291fef7be8f2de734c086b05b14ce1e80bf1dfd7e24e86aa2fa94f559 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3c39e1e291fef7be8f2de734c086b05b14ce1e80bf1dfd7e24e86aa2fa94f559
Requires -------- apache-logging-parent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless) javapackages-filesystem mvn(org.apache:apache:pom:)
Provides -------- apache-logging-parent: apache-logging-parent mvn(org.apache.logging:logging-parent:pom:)
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2214834 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, PHP, R, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214834
--- Comment #2 from Chris Kelley ckelley@redhat.com --- https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/legal/license-field/
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214834
--- Comment #3 from Chris Kelley ckelley@redhat.com --- (In reply to Sandro Mani from comment #1)
Approved - the only potential issue I see is
[!]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant
The source zip contains a pom.xml. The guidelines [1] state "If upstream project is shipping Maven pom.xml files, these MUST be installed." Please verify before importing.
[1] https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/ #_maven_pom_xml_files
"mvn install"/"%mvn_install" installs the pom. My understanding of this requirement is that you need to make sure the pom is installed even if you are not using Maven (e.g. ant, cmake, whatever) so for this package I believe this is not applicable.
Thanks for taking the time to review, much appreciated!
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2214834
Chris Kelley ckelley@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|POST |CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2023-06-20 10:01:04
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org