Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/javasysmon/javasysmon.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/javasysmon/javasysmon-0.3.4-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: JavaSysMon is designed to provide an OS-independent way to manage OS processes and get live system performance information such as CPU and memory usage, distributed as a single jar file. Fedora Account System Username: jjames
After build and try to run : ------------ [moceap@localhost java]$ java -jar javasysmon.jar OS name: Linux Uptime: 0 days 1 hours Current PID: 10226 Exception in thread "main" java.lang.IllegalStateException: No match found at java.util.regex.Matcher.group(Matcher.java:485) at com.jezhumble.javasysmon.FileUtils.runRegexOnFile(FileUtils.java:102) at com.jezhumble.javasysmon.LinuxMonitor.cpuFrequencyInHz(LinuxMonitor.java:100) at com.jezhumble.javasysmon.JavaSysMon.main(JavaSysMon.java:89) [moceap@localhost java]$ ------------ Did you mis any requires ?
Maybe you are seeing this: https://github.com/jezhumble/javasysmon/issues/21 What does /proc/cpuinfo have for your CPU model name? For me, it is: "Intel(R) Core(TM) i7 CPU 920 @ 2.67GHz", which matches the regex, so I don't see this issue.
I'm not a packager yet, But this review may help who want to take it: * Hope to fix issue #21 * License BSD * Source in SRPM match upstream one. e76d861e773169502cd3d6c5b122d536. * Spec and contents is clean * -javadoc don't require the main package * -javadoc must contain License if it be independ * -javadoc must require jpackage-utils if it be independ 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". 31 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/moceap/1025052-javasysmon/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [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: [-]: 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 ===== 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). [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in javasysmon- javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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 tarball generation or download is documented. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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: javasysmon-0.3.4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm javasysmon-javadoc-0.3.4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm javasysmon-0.3.4-1.fc19.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint javasysmon-javadoc javasysmon 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- javasysmon-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javasysmon jpackage-utils javasysmon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils Provides -------- javasysmon-javadoc: javasysmon-javadoc javasysmon: javasysmon Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jezhumble/javasysmon/archive/61ce4b8c6fdd1a2496fc907d9763cf4b7f9fc4c7/javasysmon-0.3.4-61ce4b8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f3b5e19a841c7a38402bb12280f5ace20357bc4346e87fdf462dc4aba33839f8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f3b5e19a841c7a38402bb12280f5ace20357bc4346e87fdf462dc4aba33839f8
Thank you for the review, Mosaab. (In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #3) > I'm not a packager yet, But this review may help who want to take it: > > * Hope to fix issue #21 > * License BSD > * Source in SRPM match upstream one. e76d861e773169502cd3d6c5b122d536. > * Spec and contents is clean > * -javadoc don't require the main package Actually, it does, but it doesn't have the %{?_isa} that fedora-review seems to be looking for. But it shouldn't, since this is a noarch package. I think this is a bug in fedora-review. > * -javadoc must contain License if it be independ > * -javadoc must require jpackage-utils if it be independ Ah, good catch. I'm not going to change the license situation, because I don't intend to make the javadoc be independent. But the jpackage-utils Requires is necessary. I have added that, as well as a patch (submitted upstream) to fix issue 21. New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/javasysmon/javasysmon.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/javasysmon/javasysmon-0.3.4-2.fc21.src.rpm
Thank you Jerry for fixing, I can confirm the bug fixed. Another note: This message during test: [junit] Test com.jezhumble.javasysmon.LinuxMonitorTest FAILED
Uh oh. I encountered that test failure (and one other) with the raw upstream sources, and thought I had fixed it with javasysmon-test.patch. The failure is that Java can't find the resource files used to power the test, not a failure in the code itself. Can you tell me which Fedora version you tested on (Fedora 19 x86_64, Fedora 20 arm, etc.)? That might matter.
This message just on -0.3.4-2 , I use Fedora 19 i686.
I'm an idiot. If I'm going to change the nature of the cpu frequency code, then I also have to change the expected value in the tests. I have updated the cpufreq patch to expect the correct value in LinuxMonitorTest. New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/javasysmon/javasysmon.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/javasysmon/javasysmon-0.3.4-3.fc21.src.rpm
Check test: BUILD SUCCESSFUL Test on many CPU types: Works --------- Now I can take it :)
Related to past revision: * License: BSD * Binaries: Removed * Spec: Clean * Content: Clean * %check test: Pass * Java package: Noarch * CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package: f3b5e19a841c7a38402bb12280f5ace20357bc4346e87fdf462dc4aba33839f8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package: f3b5e19a841c7a38402bb12280f5ace20357bc4346e87fdf462dc4aba33839f8 ======== APPROVED
Thank you, Mosaab. I appreciate the review.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: javasysmon Short Description: Java system monitor Owners: jjames Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
javasysmon-0.3.4-3.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/javasysmon-0.3.4-3.fc20
javasysmon-0.3.4-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/javasysmon-0.3.4-3.fc19
javasysmon-0.3.4-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
javasysmon-0.3.4-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
javasysmon-0.3.4-3.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.