Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/generic-jms-ra/1/generic-jms-ra.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/generic-jms-ra/1/generic-jms-ra-1.0.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Description: This project is for the Generic JMS JCA Resource Adapter for JBoss AS. As the name suggests, this JCA RA provides the ability to integrate with any JMS broker which allows remote clients to look-up connection factories and destinations via JNDI (as outlined in section 4.2 of the JMS 1.1 specification). It currently is only verified to work in JBoss AS7 and supports, for example, consuming messages with an MDB and sending messages with a JCA-base JMS connection factory to 3rd-party brokers. It is based on the generic JMS JCA RA found in previous versions of JBoss AS (e.g. 4, 5, and 6). However, unlike those versions this is a stand-alone project now and no longer supports internal dead-letter processing since every modern JMS broker supports this already. Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6384158
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to get additional checks ===== 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: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1051498-generic-jms-ra/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 61440 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: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [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 generic- jms-ra-javadoc [x]: 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. [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]: 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. ===== 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: generic-jms-ra-1.0.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm generic-jms-ra-javadoc-1.0.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm generic-jms-ra-1.0.1-1.fc21.src.rpm generic-jms-ra-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint generic-jms-ra generic-jms-ra-javadoc generic-jms-ra-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- generic-jms-ra (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging) mvn(org.jboss.spec.javax.resource:jboss-connector-api_1.6_spec) mvn(org.jboss:jboss-common-core) generic-jms-ra-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- generic-jms-ra: generic-jms-ra mvn(org.jboss.genericjms:generic-jms-ra-jar) mvn(org.jboss.genericjms:generic-jms-ra-pom) mvn(org.jboss.genericjms:generic-jms-ra-pom:pom:) generic-jms-ra-javadoc: generic-jms-ra-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jms-ra/generic-jms-ra/archive/1.0.1.Final.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 29ac6f55a89f3bc20e1eab2d9851041db56cd4fd30008ce10ea03a147d06a076 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 29ac6f55a89f3bc20e1eab2d9851041db56cd4fd30008ce10ea03a147d06a076 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1051498 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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 approved
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: generic-jms-ra Short Description: Generic JMS JCA Resource Adapter for JBoss AS Owners: goldmann Branches: f20
Git done (by process-git-requests).