Bug 825347

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.13/jersey.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.13/jersey-1.13-1.fc16.src.rpm
- update to 1.13

- removed glassfish-el-impl references (RHBZ #825349)

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.14/jersey.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.14/jersey-1.14-1.fc16.src.rpm
- update to 1.14
tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4498912

I am taking this review.

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.14/jersey.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.14/jersey-1.14-1.fc16.src.rpm

- enabled test-framework and contribs modules

Fails to build in rawhide mock:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4574382

I didn't see depends on the other reviews because they were added after I took the review.

I'm releasing this review as it doesn't look like it has several missing dependencies for now.

depend on https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=859114

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.15/jersey.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.15/jersey-1.15-1.fc16.src.rpm
- update to 1.15

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.16/jersey.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.16/jersey-1.16-1.fc18.src.rpm
- update to 1.16
- disabled grizzly2 support

tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4860929

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.17.1/jersey.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.17.1/jersey-1.17.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
- update to 1.17.1

Package Review
==============

Key:
[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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 563200 bytes in 15 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
[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.

Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
     Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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.

Java:
[x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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: jersey-1.17.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          jersey-test-framework-1.17.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          jersey-contribs-1.17.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          maven-wadl-plugin-1.17.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          jersey-javadoc-1.17.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
jersey.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tomcat-lib
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint jersey-contribs jersey-javadoc maven-wadl-plugin jersey jersey-test-framework
jersey.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tomcat-lib
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 825347

The package looks good, just one small issue:
One file in jersey-core/ is under ASL 2.0 license, thus license field in spec file should probably be: "(CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions) and ASL 2.0"

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.17.1/1/jersey.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jersey/1.17.1/1/jersey-1.17.1-2.fc18.src.rpm
- fixed license field
- installed ASL license txt file

Looks good to me now. Thanks

================
*** APPROVED ***
================

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jersey
Short Description: JAX-RS (JSR 311) production quality Reference Implementation
Owners: gil
Branches: f18 f19
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

jersey-1.17.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

jersey-1.17.1-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: jersey
New Branches: el6
Owners: gwei3
InitialCC: gil

Fedora owner gil don't want to own the EPEL branch as stated in Bug 979339.

Git done (by process-git-requests).

jersey-1.17.1-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jersey-1.17.1-4.fc19

jersey-1.17.1-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.