Bug 1074625 - Review Request: stream-lib - Stream summarizer and cardinality estimator.
Summary: Review Request: stream-lib - Stream summarizer and cardinality estimator.
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Haïkel Guémar
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-03-10 16:50 UTC by Will Benton
Modified: 2014-03-20 21:04 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: stream-lib-2.6.0-1
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2014-03-20 21:04:11 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
karlthered: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Will Benton 2014-03-10 16:50:41 UTC
Spec URL: http://freevariable.com/stream-lib/stream-lib.spec
SRPM URL: http://freevariable.com/stream-lib/stream-lib-2.6.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
Description: Stream summarizer and cardinality estimator.
Fedora Account System Username: willb

NB:  this package contains forked code from Apache Cassandra; a FPC exception to allow it is currently being voted on:  https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/401

Comment 1 Haïkel Guémar 2014-03-20 18:17:57 UTC
Is the test suite runnable ?
At the moment, I haven't found any blockers except the FPC exception request but I'm confident that it'll get sorted out.

Comment 2 Will Benton 2014-03-20 18:32:50 UTC
The test suite depends upon a few things that aren't in Fedora, notably:  Colt (non-free, can't package) and mahout-math (not available yet).  If mahout-math becomes available in the future I can evaluate whether or not we could use lancer or something else for the Colt functionality required by the test suite.

Comment 3 Haïkel Guémar 2014-03-20 18:53:54 UTC
Seems fair, I'll keep reviewing the code and it features but I don't see anything preventing its approval as soon as the FPC agrees with the exception request (i'll try to ping some members about it).

Comment 4 Haïkel Guémar 2014-03-20 18:58:03 UTC
Ok, the exception has just been approved by the FPC, let's move on with the formal review :o)
http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting-1/2014-03-20/fedora-meeting-1.2014-03-20-17.05.html


Since it respects Fedora general & java specific packaging guidelines, I hereby approve this package into Fedora Packages Collection



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:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
     8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/haikel/1074625-stream-lib/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: 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 20480 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
[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:
[ ]: 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:
[-]: 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 stream-lib-
     javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[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: stream-lib-2.6.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          stream-lib-javadoc-2.6.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
          stream-lib-2.6.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
stream-lib.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) summarizer -> summarize, summarizes, summarized
stream-lib.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cardinality -> carnality, cardinal
stream-lib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US infeasible -> unfeasible, in feasible, in-feasible
stream-lib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cardinality -> carnality, cardinal
stream-lib.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) summarizer -> summarize, summarizes, summarized
stream-lib.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cardinality -> carnality, cardinal
stream-lib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US infeasible -> unfeasible, in feasible, in-feasible
stream-lib.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cardinality -> carnality, cardinal
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint stream-lib stream-lib-javadoc
stream-lib.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) summarizer -> summarize, summarizes, summarized
stream-lib.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) cardinality -> carnality, cardinal
stream-lib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US infeasible -> unfeasible, in feasible, in-feasible
stream-lib.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cardinality -> carnality, cardinal
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
stream-lib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(it.unimi.dsi:fastutil)

stream-lib-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
stream-lib:
    mvn(com.clearspring.analytics:stream)
    stream-lib

stream-lib-javadoc:
    stream-lib-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/addthis/stream-lib/archive/214c92595d5be3a1cedc881b50231ccb34862074/stream-lib-214c92595d5be3a1cedc881b50231ccb34862074.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b8fedea474b04511d8271dbec4e181966b5baebf587c0a664e246809a867c45e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b8fedea474b04511d8271dbec4e181966b5baebf587c0a664e246809a867c45e

Comment 5 Will Benton 2014-03-20 19:12:57 UTC
Thanks for the quick review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: stream-lib
Short Description: stream summarizer and cardinality estimator
Owners: willb
Branches: 
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-03-20 20:09:31 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Will Benton 2014-03-20 21:04:11 UTC
Thanks again, all!


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.