Bug 972533

Summary: Review Request: javaewah - A word-aligned compressed variant of the Java bitset class
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Gerard Ryan <fedora>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: gil cattaneo <puntogil>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: akurtako, notting, package-review, puntogil
Target Milestone: ---Flags: puntogil: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: javaewah-0.6.12-1.fc19 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2013-06-29 18:47:30 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 Gerard Ryan 2013-06-09 22:06:48 UTC
Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/javaewah/javaewah.spec
SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/javaewah/javaewah-0.6.12-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
JavaEWAH is a word-aligned compressed variant of the Java bitset class.
It uses a 64-bit run-length encoding (RLE) compression scheme.

The goal of word-aligned compression is not to achieve the best
compression, but rather to improve query processing time. Hence, we try
to save CPU cycles, maybe at the expense of storage. However, the EWAH
scheme we implemented is always more efficient storage-wise than an
uncompressed bitmap (implemented in Java as the BitSet class). Unlike
some alternatives, javaewah does not rely on a patented scheme.

Fedora Account System Username: galileo

I anticipate this will be a dependency of eclipse-jgit-3.0.0

Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5485661

Comment 1 gil cattaneo 2013-06-09 22:19:04 UTC
Package Review
==============

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



===== 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 javaewah-
     javadoc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/gil/972533-javaewah/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: 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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 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]: 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]: 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
     Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
     pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

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 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:
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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.
[x]: %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.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

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

===== 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: javaewah-0.6.12-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          javaewah-javadoc-0.6.12-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
javaewah.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bitset -> bit set, bit-set, tsetse
javaewah.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitset -> bit set, bit-set, tsetse
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint javaewah javaewah-javadoc
javaewah.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) bitset -> bit set, bit-set, tsetse
javaewah.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bitset -> bit set, bit-set, tsetse
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
javaewah (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils

javaewah-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
javaewah:
    javaewah
    mvn(com.googlecode.javaewah:JavaEWAH)
    osgi(com.googlecode.javaewah.JavaEWAH)

javaewah-javadoc:
    javaewah-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/lemire/javaewah/archive/c48e1fb068e1b4e4f1c8600904d61d1dddda5a54/javaewah-0.6.12-c48e1fb.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a2dd0c0db8427c731c02ebc1b04aab51581448e5c7bd377cffe54f06c89cd889
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a2dd0c0db8427c731c02ebc1b04aab51581448e5c7bd377cffe54f06c89cd889
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 972533 -m fedora-rawhide-i386

approved

Comment 2 Gerard Ryan 2013-06-10 07:32:32 UTC
Wow, that was quick. Thanks a lot Gil, I'll owe you one! :)

Comment 3 Gerard Ryan 2013-06-10 07:34:26 UTC
New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: javaewah
Short Description: A word-aligned compressed variant of the Java bitset class
Owners: galileo
Branches: f19
InitialCC:

Comment 4 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-06-10 12:41:57 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 5 Fedora Update System 2013-06-10 20:19:18 UTC
javaewah-0.6.12-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/javaewah-0.6.12-1.fc19

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2013-06-11 17:54:25 UTC
javaewah-0.6.12-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2013-06-29 18:47:30 UTC
javaewah-0.6.12-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.