Bug 919697

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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in glassfish-
     servlet-api-javadoc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/msrb/review/919697-glassfish-
     servlet-api/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[!]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Java:
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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:
[!]: Dist tag is present.
[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.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[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.
[x]: %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]: 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: glassfish-servlet-api-3.1-0.1.b07.noarch.rpm
          glassfish-servlet-api-javadoc-3.1-0.1.b07.noarch.rpm
glassfish-servlet-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java
glassfish-servlet-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment
glassfish-servlet-api.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.1-b07 ['3.1-0.1.b07', '3.1-0.1.b07']
glassfish-servlet-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Provides
--------
glassfish-servlet-api:
    glassfish-servlet-api
    javax.servlet
    mvn(javax.servlet:javax.servlet-api)
    osgi(javax.servlet-api)

glassfish-servlet-api-javadoc:
    glassfish-servlet-api-javadoc


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 919697


Just small things:
1. There are some files under ASL license, so I would say:
License:    (CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions) and ASL 2.0

2. dist tag is missing.
Release:   0.1.b07{?dist}

and last thing, rpmlint warning:
glassfish-servlet-api.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 3.1-b07 ['3.1-0.1.b07', '3.1-0.1.b07']

All comments are addressed.

Spec URL: http://davidx.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-servlet-api.spec
SRPM URL: http://davidx.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-servlet-api-3.1-0.1.b07.src.rpm
Description: The javax.servlet package contains a number of classes \
and interfaces that describe and define the contracts between \
a servlet class and the runtime environment provided for \
an instance of such a class by a conforming servlet container.
Fedora Account System Username:davidx

Spec URL: http://davidx.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-servlet-api.spec
SRPM URL: http://davidx.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-servlet-api-3.1-0.1.b07.src.rpm
Description: The javax.servlet package contains a number of classes \
and interfaces that describe and define the contracts between \
a servlet class and the runtime environment provided for \
an instance of such a class by a conforming servlet container.
Fedora Account System Username:davidx

*** Bug 889303 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

hi can you add glassfish-legal support?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895810
thanks regards

see http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-servlet-api.spec

(In reply to comment #5)
> hi can you add glassfish-legal support?
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=895810
> thanks regards

Hi,

Mikolaj and I have discussed about this, we both thought adding a package just for CDDL license is unnecessary. So I used a patch to remove this BR. Please have a look at my patch.

http://davidx.fedorapeople.org/remove-glassfish-servlet-api-legal.patch

Spec URL: http://davidx.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-servlet-api.spec
SRPM URL: http://davidx.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-servlet-api-3.1-0.1.b07.fc20.src.rpm
Description: The javax.servlet package contains a number of classes 
and interfaces that describe and define the contracts between 
a servlet class and the runtime environment provided for 
an instance of such a class by a conforming servlet container.
Fedora Account System Username:davidx

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.
[x]: 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
[x]: 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.
[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]: 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]: 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.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).

Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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
[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]: 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.
[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: glassfish-servlet-api-3.1-0.1.b07.fc20.noarch.rpm
          glassfish-servlet-api-javadoc-3.1-0.1.b07.fc20.noarch.rpm
glassfish-servlet-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java
glassfish-servlet-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint glassfish-servlet-api glassfish-servlet-api-javadoc
glassfish-servlet-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java
glassfish-servlet-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US runtime -> run time, run-time, rudiment
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
glassfish-servlet-api (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java
    jpackage-utils

glassfish-servlet-api-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
glassfish-servlet-api:
    glassfish-servlet-api
    mvn(javax.servlet:javax.servlet-api)
    osgi(javax.servlet-api)

glassfish-servlet-api-javadoc:
    glassfish-servlet-api-javadoc



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30


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 919697


Looks good, approved.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: glassfish-servlet-api
Short Description: Java Servlet API
Owners: davidx
Branches: f19
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Clearing flag.

glassfish-servlet-api-3.1.0-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glassfish-servlet-api-3.1.0-1.fc19

glassfish-servlet-api-3.1.0-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.