Bug 977589 (je)

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je-5.0.73-1.fc19.src.rpm

- used system objectweb-asm4

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5605527

Isn't libdb-java sufficient for what you need this one?

hi,
no  isn't compatible ... (is required by netcdf-java library)


[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[93,15] error: cannot find symbol
[ERROR] symbol:   method setReadOnly(boolean)
[ERROR] location: variable myEnvConfig of type EnvironmentConfig
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[95,15] error: cannot find symbol
[ERROR] symbol:   method setSharedCache(boolean)
[ERROR] location: variable myEnvConfig of type EnvironmentConfig
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[100,17] error: cannot find symbol
[ERROR] symbol:   method setCachePercent(int)
[ERROR] location: variable myEnvConfig of type EnvironmentConfig
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[110,30] error: cannot find symbol
[ERROR] symbol:   class EnvironmentLockedException
[ERROR] location: package com.sleepycat.db
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[117,17] error: cannot find symbol
[ERROR] symbol:   method setReadOnly(boolean)
[ERROR] location: variable myEnvConfig of type EnvironmentConfig
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[168,6] error: cannot find symbol
[ERROR] symbol:   class EnvironmentStats
[ERROR] location: class MetadataManager
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[168,36] error: cannot find symbol
[ERROR] symbol:   method getStats(<null>)
[ERROR] location: variable myEnv of type Environment
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[172,32] error: cannot find symbol
[ERROR] symbol:   method getDatabaseNames()
[ERROR] location: variable myEnv of type Environment
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[186,11] error: cannot find symbol
[ERROR] symbol:   method sync()
[ERROR] location: variable myEnv of type Environment
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[192,16] error: cannot find symbol
[ERROR] symbol:   method getDatabaseNames()
[ERROR] location: variable myEnv of type Environment
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[203,9] error: method removeDatabase in class Environment cannot be applied to given types;
[ERROR] required: Transaction,String,String
[ERROR] found: <null>,String
[ERROR] reason: actual and formal argument lists differ in length
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[240,14] error: cannot find symbol
[ERROR] symbol:   method setDeferredWrite(boolean)
[ERROR] location: variable dbConfig of type DatabaseConfig
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[241,20] error: method openDatabase in class Environment cannot be applied to given types;
[ERROR] required: Transaction,String,String,DatabaseConfig
[ERROR] found: <null>,String,DatabaseConfig
[ERROR] reason: actual and formal argument lists differ in length
[ERROR] ~/rpmbuild/BUILD/thredds-4.3.16/cdm/src/main/java/thredds/inventory/bdb/MetadataManager.java:[382,37] error: method getStats in class Database cannot be applied to given types;
[ERROR] required: Transaction,StatsConfig
[ERROR] found: <null>
[ERROR] reason: actual and formal argument lists differ in length

regards

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je-5.0.84-1.fc19.src.rpm

- update to 5.0.84

taken  ;)

Created attachment 797579 [details]
build.log - FTBFS / unpackaged files and other

FTBFS because of unpackaged files.  build.log reveals some problems during creation of javadocs, too.  :(

i apologize for the incovenience

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je-5.0.84-2.fc18.src.rpm

- fix files list in main package
- resolve problems during javadocs processing

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je-5.0.84-2.fc19.src.rpm

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6005828

Package has some issues.  :(

#####

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

Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated


===== 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 1491 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in
     /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/977589-je/licensecheck.txt

     ---> License-tag is fine.

[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

     ---> je-javadoc doesn't ship any LICENSE

[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java

     ---> is owned by `javapackages-tools`,  package should Requires this.

[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

     ---> see unowned dirs

[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 4 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines

     ---> issues present

[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).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: 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]: 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]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
     Note: More than one javadoc package

     ---> package split for examples

[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[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 Maven mapping
     Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
     or update to latest guidelines
[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:
[-]: 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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in je-examples
     , je-javadoc , je-examples-javadoc

     ---> je-examples-javadoc should
            Requires: je-javadoc = %{version}-%{release}
          je-examples should Requires: je = %{version}-%{release}

[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
[-]: 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.

     ---> test are run by maven during %build

[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: je-5.0.84-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
          je-examples-5.0.84-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
          je-javadoc-5.0.84-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
          je-examples-javadoc-5.0.84-2.fc21.noarch.rpm
          je-5.0.84-2.fc21.src.rpm
je.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional
je.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional
je.src: W: invalid-url Source0: je-5.0.84-clean.tar.xz
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint je je-examples je-javadoc je-examples-javadoc
je.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
je (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java
    jpackage-utils
    objectweb-asm4

je-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

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

je-examples-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
je:
    je
    mvn(com.sleepycat:je)

je-examples:
    je-examples

je-javadoc:
    je-javadoc

je-examples-javadoc:
    je-examples-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
http://download.oracle.com/maven/com/sleepycat/je/5.0.84/je-5.0.84.pom :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 81241c8c96b24444deb8293d5a8772f03f1565c8b663c68ab875aa82e4b74ab2
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 81241c8c96b24444deb8293d5a8772f03f1565c8b663c68ab875aa82e4b74ab2


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 977589
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG

#####

Please fix those issues and I'll take another review.

> 
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> 
>      ---> je-javadoc doesn't ship any LICENSE
done
> 
> [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java
> 
>      ---> is owned by `javapackages-tools`,  package should Requires this.
> 
why? should be sufficient jpackage-utils ..?


> [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> 
>      ---> see unowned dirs
don't understand this point, i remove internal asm4 library and now should use as external ...

> [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
> 
>      ---> issues present
> 
which issues?
> 

> je-examples
>      , je-javadoc , je-examples-javadoc
> 
>      ---> je-examples-javadoc should
>             Requires: je-javadoc = %{version}-%{release}
>           je-examples should Requires: je = %{version}-%{release}
> 
done

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je-5.0.84-3.fc19.src.rpm

added BR/R javapackages-tools (remove jpackage-utils references)

ERROR: 'Error 404 downloading http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je-5.0.84-3.fc19.src.rpm'

(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #14)
> ERROR: 'Error 404 downloading
> http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je-5.0.84-3.fc19.src.rpm'

bad me...
sorry
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je-5.0.84-3.fc19.src.rpm

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/je-5.0.97-1.fc19.src.rpm

- update to 5.0.97

Package has some minor issues; no blockers.  :)  Fix them on import, please.

#####

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

Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated


Issues:
=======
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils

---> Please add BuildRequires: jpackage-utils

===== 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 1496 files have unknown license. Detailed output
     of licensecheck in
     /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/977589-je/licensecheck.txt

     ---> License-tag is fine.

[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java

     ---> please add Requires: javapackages-tools to the
          main && examples-pkg.

[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.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

     ---> see the javapackages-tools issue

[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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]: 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]: 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]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
     Note: More than one javadoc package

     ---> There is no explicity Requires: jpackage-utils for *-javadoc
          so this a flase positive and the dependency comes from something
          broken in Java-stack...

[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[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 Maven mapping
     Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
     or update to latest guidelines
[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:
[-]: 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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in je-javadoc
     , je-examples-javadoc

     ---> That intentional for doc-pkgs.  False-positive

[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
[-]: 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.

     ---> test are run during maven-build

[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

     ---> HINT: use `cp -a` instead of `cp -rp` (Just a suggestion)  ;)

[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: je-5.0.97-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          je-examples-5.0.97-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          je-javadoc-5.0.97-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          je-examples-javadoc-5.0.97-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          je-5.0.97-1.fc21.src.rpm
je.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional
je.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional
je.src: W: invalid-url Source0: je-5.0.97-clean.tar.xz
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint je je-examples je-javadoc je-examples-javadoc
je.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US transactional -> transaction, transnational, transitional
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
je (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java
    javapackages-tools
    jpackage-utils
    objectweb-asm4

je-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    je

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

je-examples-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    je-javadoc
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
je:
    je
    mvn(com.sleepycat:je)

je-examples:
    je-examples

je-javadoc:
    je-javadoc

je-examples-javadoc:
    je-examples-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
http://download.oracle.com/maven/com/sleepycat/je/5.0.97/je-5.0.97.pom :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 432ec5ef2270141cd31aaab233aa7a72d96df6f0bd1e4b263d32acd907262616
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 432ec5ef2270141cd31aaab233aa7a72d96df6f0bd1e4b263d32acd907262616


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 977589
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG

#####

APPROVED!!!

Please fix the `javapackages-tools issue` (missing BR/Req in main && examples) during import.

Thanks!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: je
Short Description: Berkeley DB Java Edition
Owners: gil
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

je-5.0.97-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/je-5.0.97-1.fc20

je-5.0.97-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/je-5.0.97-1.fc19

je-5.0.97-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

je-5.0.97-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

je-5.0.97-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

je-5.0.97-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.