Bug 1146662
Summary: | Review Request: java-libpst - A pure Java library for the reading of Outlook PST and OST files | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | gil cattaneo <puntogil> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Michal Srb <msrb> |
Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | msrb, package-review |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | msrb:
fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | java-libpst-0.8.1-2.fc21 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2014-12-12 04:35:20 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: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 1146661 |
Description
gil cattaneo
2014-09-25 17:32:44 UTC
Tarball contains license texts for ASL 2.0 and LGPLv2+ and spec file reflects this in license field. However, all source files contain following header: * java-libpst is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published by * the Free Software Foundation, either *version 3* of the License, or * (at your option) any later version. So either license text in tarball (and subsequently license tag in spec file) is incorrect or license headers in source files are. Upstream should decide which version of LGPL license they want to use. (In reply to Michal Srb from comment #1) > Tarball contains license texts for ASL 2.0 and LGPLv2+ and spec file > reflects this in license field. However, all source files contain following > header: > > * java-libpst is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify > * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published > by > * the Free Software Foundation, either *version 3* of the License, or > * (at your option) any later version. > > So either license text in tarball (and subsequently license tag in spec > file) is incorrect or license headers in source files are. > > Upstream should decide which version of LGPL license they want to use. report the problem @ https://github.com/rjohnsondev/java-libpst/issues/23 Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-libpst.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-libpst-0.8.1-2.fc19.src.rpm - update license tag Upstream didn't respond, so please, i install LGPLv3 license text and you'll continue with the review, if there aren't objections. (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) > (In reply to Michal Srb from comment #1) > > Tarball contains license texts for ASL 2.0 and LGPLv2+ and spec file > > reflects this in license field. However, all source files contain following > > header: > > > > * java-libpst is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify > > * it under the terms of the GNU Lesser General Public License as published > > by > > * the Free Software Foundation, either *version 3* of the License, or > > * (at your option) any later version. > > > > So either license text in tarball (and subsequently license tag in spec > > file) is incorrect or license headers in source files are. > > > > Upstream should decide which version of LGPL license they want to use. > > report the problem @ https://github.com/rjohnsondev/java-libpst/issues/23 Fixed #23 via https://github.com/rjohnsondev/java-libpst/commit/07af7b8c2311d1f7f4a045300df7d8dbb0124c4e. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable ===== 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]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [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 61440 bytes in 5 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 %doc. [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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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 depmaps) 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 %{_mavenpomdir} 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [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: java-libpst-0.8.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm java-libpst-javadoc-0.8.1-2.fc22.noarch.rpm java-libpst-0.8.1-2.fc22.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- java-libpst-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils java-libpst (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils Provides -------- java-libpst-javadoc: java-libpst-javadoc java-libpst: java-libpst mvn(com.pff:java-libpst) mvn(com.pff:java-libpst:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rjohnsondev/java-libpst/archive/0.8.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dc270e37e44d36a670282dae34de720042e5b06cb02d50658b4377472cdfebb8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dc270e37e44d36a670282dae34de720042e5b06cb02d50658b4377472cdfebb8 https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : da7eabb7bafdf7d3ae5e9f223aa5bdc1eece45ac569dc21b3b037520b4464768 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : da7eabb7bafdf7d3ae5e9f223aa5bdc1eece45ac569dc21b3b037520b4464768 Just one non-blocking issue: You're installing both LGPLv2 and LGPLv3 license texts. I think that installing just LGPLv3 should be enough. APPROVED. (In reply to Michal Srb from comment #6) > Just one non-blocking issue: You're installing both LGPLv2 and LGPLv3 > license texts. I think that installing just LGPLv3 should be enough. Done, thanks for the review. Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-libpst.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-libpst-0.8.1-2.fc19.src.rpm New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: java-libpst Short Description: A pure Java library for the reading of Outlook PST and OST files Owners: gil Branches: f21 InitialCC: java-sig Git done (by process-git-requests). java-libpst-0.8.1-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/java-libpst-0.8.1-2.fc21 java-libpst-0.8.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository. java-libpst-0.8.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository. |