Bug 832803

Summary: Review Request: apache-commons-primitives - A set of collection and utility classes for primitive types
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: gil cattaneo <puntogil>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Till Hofmann <thofmann>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: akurtako, package-review, puntogil, thofmann
Target Milestone: ---Flags: thofmann: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc22 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-04-21 19:08:08 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 832804    

Description gil cattaneo 2012-06-17 14:10:56 UTC
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-primitives.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc16.src.rpm
Description: Commons Primitives is a set of collection and
utility classes for primitive types. The Java
language has a clear distinction between
Object and primitive types. A lot of functionality
is provided for Object types, including the Java
Collection Framework. Relatively little functionality
is provided by the JDK for primitives. This package
addresses this by providing a set of utility and
collection classes for primitives.
Fedora Account System Username: gil

Comment 1 gil cattaneo 2012-06-27 11:13:06 UTC
*** Bug 823120 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 2 Alexander Kurtakov 2012-07-06 13:19:23 UTC
Is there a reason to package some revision instead of 1.0 release ?

Comment 3 gil cattaneo 2012-07-06 14:06:45 UTC
yes at the moment dont remember which package require the 1.1 version

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2013-06-04 20:09:26 UTC
I am triaging old review tickets.  I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale.

Build fails for me: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5467087

Comment 5 gil cattaneo 2013-06-04 21:45:42 UTC
yes i know, need maven-local instead of maven as buildrequires

Comment 8 gil cattaneo 2015-04-13 13:19:56 UTC
hi can you wait a moment? ... upload new files

Comment 9 gil cattaneo 2015-04-13 13:23:17 UTC

Comment 11 Till Hofmann 2015-04-15 07:23:39 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- Changelog is incomplete (this is not the initial package from 2012)
- Please explain in the SPEC file why a pre-release version is packaged

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata, /usr/share/licenses
     NOT an issue: owned by javapackages-tools and filesystem
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
     Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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 2 files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[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
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

[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 =====

[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[?]: 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]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[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.

[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

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

[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.

Checking: apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc23.noarch.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)

apache-commons-primitives-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

apache-commons-primitives (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://github.com/apache/commons-primitives/archive/ba65d72f2634bae13e0c0157de297c12a7329b16/commons-primitives-ba65d72f2634bae13e0c0157de297c12a7329b16.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 562423f9701a1fb2c47fb4fbcc1d92517f30427b87e0e8cfb753746ed10aae0b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 562423f9701a1fb2c47fb4fbcc1d92517f30427b87e0e8cfb753746ed10aae0b

Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n apache-commons-primitives -p -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

Comment 12 Till Hofmann 2015-04-15 07:27:11 UTC
Some minor comments:
As noted above, please mention in the SPEC file why you need to package a pre-release. 
Also please be more elaborate in the changelog. You've updated the SPEC file two days ago, but the last (and only) entry in the changelog is from 2012.

Other than that, the package looks good.

Comment 13 gil cattaneo 2015-04-15 11:47:33 UTC

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: apache-commons-primitives
Short Description: A set of collection and utility classes for primitive types
Upstream URL: http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-primitives/
Owners: gil
Branches: f22
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 14 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-04-15 13:46:45 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2015-04-15 14:58:16 UTC
apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.

Comment 16 Till Hofmann 2015-04-18 10:04:53 UTC
Please remember to close this ticket once you're done.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2015-04-21 19:08:08 UTC
apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.