Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/extra166y.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/extra166y-1.7.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: This project has the sole purpose of being a mirror for Doug Lea’s CVS repository for JSR-166 code that he and collaborators develop, allowing the artifacts to be injected into the Codehaus repository and thence the Maven repository. This project provides preliminary versions of classes that build upon those targeted for JDK7, but are not planned for inclusion. Codehaus projects such as GPars (http://gpars.codehaus.org) depend on these artifacts. See http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/concurrency-interest/ Fedora Account System Username: gil Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8017987
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Please provide more appropriate description. The one you have describes the mirror, not the software itself. - Use http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/concurrency-interest as upstream URL instead of URL of the mirror - You removed the sources of parts we don't need, is there any reason to keep the tests for those parts? - I don't see GPLv2 anywhere in the code, only in the tests, which don't end up in binary RPM, so it shouldn't be in the license tag. ===== 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]: 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 208 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/msimacek/reviews/1159976-extra166y/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-metadata [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. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Test run failed [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]: 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 extra166y- javadoc [?]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [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. [-]: %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: [?]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: extra166y-1.7.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm extra166y-javadoc-1.7.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm extra166y-1.7.0-1.fc22.src.rpm extra166y.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Codehaus -> Wodehouse extra166y.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Codehaus -> Wodehouse extra166y.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jsr166-1.7.0.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- extra166y-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils extra166y (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils Provides -------- extra166y-javadoc: extra166y-javadoc extra166y: extra166y mvn(org.codehaus.jsr166-mirror:extra166y) mvn(org.codehaus.jsr166-mirror:extra166y:pom:) osgi(extra166y) Source checksums ---------------- http://repository.codehaus.org/org/codehaus/jsr166-mirror/extra166y/1.7.0/extra166y-1.7.0.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ddd61bc1c6bc35b9ee47a49031449bdb606557f309b5b688cc20a6630a780627 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ddd61bc1c6bc35b9ee47a49031449bdb606557f309b5b688cc20a6630a780627 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1159976 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 #1) > Issues: > ======= > - Please provide more appropriate description. The one you have > describes the mirror, not the software itself. Any ideas? > - Use http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/concurrency-interest as upstream URL > instead of URL of the mirror Done > - You removed the sources of parts we don't need, is there any reason to > keep the tests for those parts? Done > - I don't see GPLv2 anywhere in the code, only in the tests, which don't > end up in binary RPM, so it shouldn't be in the license tag. Done Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/extra166y.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/extra166y-1.7.0-2.fc19.src.rpm
Hmm, I cannot find any description of this part anywhere. Try something like this: Implementation of Java collections supporting parallel operations using Fork-Join concurrent framework provided by JSR-166. I cannot think of anythin more detailed.
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #3) > Hmm, I cannot find any description of this part anywhere. Try something like > this: > Implementation of Java collections supporting parallel operations using > Fork-Join concurrent framework provided by JSR-166. > > > > I cannot think of anythin more detailed. Thanks! Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/extra166y.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/extra166y-1.7.0-2.fc19.src.rpm
Looks ok now. Approved
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: extra166y Short Description: Concurrency JSR-166 - Collections supporting parallel operations Owners: gil Branches: f21 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
extra166y-1.7.0-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/extra166y-1.7.0-2.fc21
extra166y-1.7.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
extra166y-1.7.0-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: extra166y New Branches: f20 Owners: gil InitialCC: java-sig