Bug 1039301
Summary: | Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | gil cattaneo <puntogil> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jerry James <loganjerry> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | loganjerry, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | loganjerry:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | 2.5.0-1.fc23 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2015-09-09 23:19:57 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: |
Description
gil cattaneo
2013-12-07 19:38:01 UTC
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda-2.4.1-1.fc19.src.rpm - update to 2.4.1 Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda-2.4.2-1.fc19.src.rpm - update to 2.4.2 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8414508 Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc20.src.rpm - update to 2.5.0 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8786952 Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc22.src.rpm I will take this review. The only issue I see is that the latest version (2.6.1) is not packaged. Can it be used, or is there a reason why 2.5.0 is necessary? On a related note, it looks like 2.5.4 might fix the ComparisonFailure noted in %prep. If 2.6.x is not feasible, can 2.5.4 be used at least? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [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. [-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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 [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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. But it doesn't matter, because maven runs the tests while building. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: 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: jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm jackson-datatype-joda-javadoc-2.5.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc24.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- jackson-datatype-joda-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils jackson-datatype-joda (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-annotations) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind) mvn(joda-time:joda-time) Provides -------- jackson-datatype-joda-javadoc: jackson-datatype-joda-javadoc jackson-datatype-joda: jackson-datatype-joda mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.datatype:jackson-datatype-joda) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.datatype:jackson-datatype-joda:pom:) osgi(com.fasterxml.jackson.datatype.jackson-datatype-joda) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-datatype-joda/archive/jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 563836352c2f9d9fea7e4b1f1633d9e110666c5ab32042cec4a3f4a9e03166df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 563836352c2f9d9fea7e4b1f1633d9e110666c5ab32042cec4a3f4a9e03166df Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1039301 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 (In reply to Jerry James from comment #6) > The only issue I see is that the latest version (2.6.1) is not packaged. > Can it be used, or is there a reason why 2.5.0 is necessary? > > On a related note, it looks like 2.5.4 might fix the ComparisonFailure noted > in %prep. If 2.6.x is not feasible, can 2.5.4 be used at least? I prefer use this release for the moment, until will have upgraded all jackson 2 packages, for avoid apis breakage list of packages which should be updated http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/fasterxml-oss-parent http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/?q=jackson Okay, just wanted to be sure there was a reason. This package is APPROVED. Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jackson-datatype-joda Short Description: Add-on module for Jackson to support Joda data-types Upstream URL: http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonModuleJoda Owners: gil Branches: f22 f23 InitialCC: java-sig Git done (by process-git-requests). jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14584 jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14586 jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update jackson-datatype-joda'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14586 jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update jackson-datatype-joda'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14584 jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. |