Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/parquet-format.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/parquet-format-2.0.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Parquet is a columnar storage format that supports nested data. This provides all generated meta-data code. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6708890
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/parquet-format.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/parquet-format-2.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm - update to 2.1.0
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/parquet-format.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/parquet-format-2.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
Will, are you still interested in reviewing this package?
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #4) > Will, are you still interested in reviewing this package? yes is used by parquet package
Thanks for your work (and patience), Gil! LGTM. 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". NB: Util.java, which is missing a license, is fixed in upstream trunk. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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. [x]: 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. [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. [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]: 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: [-]: 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. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Looks like upstream doesn't ship tests? [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: parquet-format-2.1.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm parquet-format-javadoc-2.1.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm parquet-format-2.1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint parquet-format parquet-format-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- parquet-format (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils mvn(org.apache.thrift:libthrift) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) parquet-format-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- parquet-format: mvn(com.twitter:parquet-format) parquet-format parquet-format-javadoc: parquet-format-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Parquet/parquet-format/archive/parquet-format-2.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dcc2e55eea69c02fbcf400b1374454e12baac179cb31c8b52e929987cc0cbeed CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dcc2e55eea69c02fbcf400b1374454e12baac179cb31c8b52e929987cc0cbeed Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1073014 Buildroot used: fedora-20-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 Will Benton from comment #6) > Thanks for your work (and patience), Gil! LGTM. > Thanks to you!
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: parquet-format Short Description: Columnar file format for Hadoop Upstream URL: http://parquet.io/ Owners: gil Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
parquet-format-2.1.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/parquet-format-2.1.0-1.fc22
parquet-format-2.1.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/parquet-format-2.1.0-1.fc21
parquet-format-2.1.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
parquet-format-2.1.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
parquet-format-2.1.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.