Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj-2.4.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Apache UIMA is an implementation of the OASIS-UIMA specifications. OASIS UIMA Committee: <http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uima/>. Unstructured Information Management applications are software systems that analyze large volumes of unstructured information in order to discover knowledge that is relevant to an end user. An example UIM application might ingest plain text and identify entities, such as persons, places, organizations; or relations, such as works-for or located-at. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Hello Friends, I am using apache version : Apache/2.2.3 ... After i have restated the services iam getting the below error... [Tue Sep 24 18:07:10 2013] [error] [client 10.64.64.246] proxy: Error reading from remote server returned by /irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/com.sap.portal.dsm.Terminator, referer: https://webmail.xx.co.in/irj/portal Kindly help any one
(In reply to Sreenadha from comment #1) > Hello Friends, > > > I am using apache version : Apache/2.2.3 > ... > > After i have restated the services iam getting the below error... > > [Tue Sep 24 18:07:10 2013] [error] [client 10.64.64.246] proxy: Error > reading from remote server returned by > /irj/servlet/prt/portal/prtroot/com.sap.portal.dsm.Terminator, referer: > https://webmail.xx.co.in/irj/portal > > > Kindly help any one sorry but you should open a new bug, this is only a package review https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Bugs_and_feature_requests?rd=BugsAndFeatureRequests#Start_Filing_the_Bug regards
The most recent upstream version is 2.5.0
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj-2.5.0-1.fc19.src.rpm - update to 2.5.0
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj-2.5.0-1.fc19.src.rpm - remove uima-build-resources references
Few issues before doing in-depth review: - icons are licensed under BSD (according to LICENSE file) -> License should be ASL 2.0 and BSD - there is a NOTICE file, which could possibly affect packages licensing. I sent an email to Fedora legal mailing-list to get this sorted out. some rpmlint warnings: uimaj.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/uimaj/NOTICE uimaj.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/uimaj/README jcasgen-maven-plugin.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/jcasgen-maven-plugin/NOTICE uima-pear-maven-plugin.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/uima-pear-maven-plugin/NOTICE uimaj-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/uimaj-javadoc/NOTICE And a few questions: Why do you remove that "eclipse stuff"? You should include a reason in the comment above it. Why do you remove apache-rat-plugin? Those scripts suggest that some parts could be directly executed by user. Why don't you install them or (better) provide %jpackage_script alternatives?
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #6) > Few issues before doing in-depth review: > - icons are licensed under BSD (according to LICENSE file) -> License should > be ASL 2.0 and BSD maybe ASL 2.0 or BSD ... ? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios > - there is a NOTICE file, which could possibly affect packages licensing. > I sent an email to Fedora legal mailing-list to get this sorted out. Thanks! > > some rpmlint warnings: > uimaj.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/uimaj/NOTICE > uimaj.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/uimaj/README > jcasgen-maven-plugin.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/jcasgen-maven-plugin/NOTICE > uima-pear-maven-plugin.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/uima-pear-maven-plugin/NOTICE > uimaj-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding > /usr/share/doc/uimaj-javadoc/NOTICE Fixed > > > And a few questions: > Why do you remove that "eclipse stuff"? You should include a reason in the > comment above it. eclipse stuff dont provides pom or depmap files... > Why do you remove apache-rat-plugin? Build @ random fails > Those scripts suggest that some parts could be directly executed by user. > Why don't you install them or (better) provide %jpackage_script alternatives? Unavailable libraries e.g. UIMA_CLASSPATH=$UIMA_CLASSPATH:$UIMA_HOME/lib/uimaj-as-core.jar UIMA_CLASSPATH=$UIMA_CLASSPATH:$UIMA_HOME/lib/uimaj-as-activemq.jar UIMA_CLASSPATH=$UIMA_CLASSPATH:$UIMA_HOME/lib/uimaj-as-jms.jar available @ http://www.apache.org/dist/uima/uima-as-2.4.2/uima-as-2.4.2-source-release.zip and others ... for now, until all deps aren't available, i prefer don't install script files or systemd support Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj-2.5.0-1.fc19.src.rpm - fix license field - fix wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #7) > (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #6) > > Few issues before doing in-depth review: > > - icons are licensed under BSD (according to LICENSE file) -> License should > > be ASL 2.0 and BSD > > maybe ASL 2.0 or BSD ... ? Dual licensing means that you (as a user of library) can choose between the two licenses and only one of them applies. But his license is not dual - this are just two licenses that each apply to different parts of the sw, but they both apply at the same time - you can't choose just one. Actual quote from the guidelines: "Note that this only applies when the contents of the package are actually under a dual license, and not when the package contains items under multiple, distinct, and independent licenses" If it were a dual license it would be explicitly stated. (Still don't know about the other license mentioned in NOTICE, though) > > Those scripts suggest that some parts could be directly executed by user. > > Why don't you install them or (better) provide %jpackage_script alternatives? > > Unavailable libraries > e.g. > UIMA_CLASSPATH=$UIMA_CLASSPATH:$UIMA_HOME/lib/uimaj-as-core.jar > UIMA_CLASSPATH=$UIMA_CLASSPATH:$UIMA_HOME/lib/uimaj-as-activemq.jar > UIMA_CLASSPATH=$UIMA_CLASSPATH:$UIMA_HOME/lib/uimaj-as-jms.jar > available @ > http://www.apache.org/dist/uima/uima-as-2.4.2/uima-as-2.4.2-source-release. > zip > > and others ... > for now, until all deps aren't available, i prefer don't install script files > or systemd support Does this affect any other part of the package?
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #8) > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #7) > > (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #6) > > > Few issues before doing in-depth review: > > > be ASL 2.0 and BSD Done! > > > and others ... > > for now, until all deps aren't available, i prefer don't install script files > > or systemd support > > Does this affect any other part of the package? I dont know never tried... this package i want use only as library (for now) if is possible (potential license issues). Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj-2.5.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
The licensing should be fine according to the response i got from legal mailing-list. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - missing BR on ant-apache-regexp - those BSD licensed icons are used only in the eclipse plugins. You disabled them so the License tag should be just ASL 2.0 ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 16 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/msimacek/1005782-uimaj/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 81920 bytes in 8 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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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]: 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 subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) 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 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 ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jcasgen- maven-plugin , uima-pear-maven-plugin , uimaj-javadoc [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [?]: 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 (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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: uimaj-2.5.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm jcasgen-maven-plugin-2.5.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm uima-pear-maven-plugin-2.5.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm uimaj-javadoc-2.5.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm uimaj-2.5.0-1.fc21.src.rpm uimaj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP uimaj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow uimaj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uima -> Lima, Maui uimaj.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP uimaj.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow uimaj.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uima -> Lima, Maui 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jcasgen-maven-plugin uimaj-javadoc uimaj uima-pear-maven-plugin uimaj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US http -> HTTP uimaj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US www -> WWW, wow uimaj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uima -> Lima, Maui 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- jcasgen-maven-plugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-core) mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-plugin-api) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-tools) mvn(org.sonatype.plexus:plexus-build-api) uimaj-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils uimaj (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils mvn(axis:axis) mvn(axis:axis-jaxrpc) mvn(junit:junit) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-logging) uima-pear-maven-plugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils mvn(commons-io:commons-io) mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-plugin-api) mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-project) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-core) Provides -------- jcasgen-maven-plugin: jcasgen-maven-plugin mvn(org.apache.uima:jcasgen-maven-plugin) uimaj-javadoc: uimaj-javadoc uimaj: mvn(org.apache.uima:aggregate-uimaj) mvn(org.apache.uima:aggregate-uimaj:pom:) mvn(org.apache.uima:jVinci) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-adapter-soap) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-adapter-vinci) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-bootstrap) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-component-test-util) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-core) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-cpe) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-document-annotation) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-parent) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-parent:pom:) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-test-util) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj-tools) mvn(org.apache.uima:uimaj:pom:) uimaj uima-pear-maven-plugin: mvn(org.apache.uima:PearPackagingMavenPlugin) uima-pear-maven-plugin Source checksums ---------------- http://www.apache.org/dist/uima/uimaj-2.5.0/uimaj-2.5.0-source-release.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0b6b734e2d42491d154c655e80b0e34f751bbf940b1d0d0bb86b0060fac3a990 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0b6b734e2d42491d154c655e80b0e34f751bbf940b1d0d0bb86b0060fac3a990 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1005782 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 Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #10) > The licensing should be fine according to the response i got from legal > mailing-list. Thanks! > > Issues: > ======= > - missing BR on ant-apache-regexp Done > - those BSD licensed icons are used only in the eclipse plugins. You disabled > them so the License tag should be just ASL 2.0 Done Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/uimaj-2.5.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
Just remove the comment about the icons, so it doesn't confuse anyone. Everything else seems fine. Koji scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6479774
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: uimaj Short Description: Apache UIMA is an implementation of the OASIS-UIMA specifications Owners: gil Branches: f20 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
uimaj-2.5.0-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/uimaj-2.5.0-1.fc20
uimaj-2.5.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
uimaj-2.5.0-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.