Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/python-javaobj/python-javaobj.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/python-javaobj/python-javaobj-0-0.1.20142011svn31.fc20.src.rpm Description: Python module for serializing and deserializing Java objects Fedora Account System Username: raphgro koji rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8201922
Hi, sorry it took so long to get to this! Issues: ======= * Please add comments about the separate COPYRIGHT file, where is this from? Query upstream to include a copy of the license if they do not do so. * Description contains lines longer than 80 characters -- See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Summary_and_description * Package must BR: python2-devel or python3-devel -- See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires * Package should not R: python as this is added automatically -- See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#Multiple_Python_Runtimes * No need to BR: java-devel, maven-resources-plugin or maven-surefire-plugin because "maven-local" will pull all of these in for you * Rpmlint warnings about macros in comments -- they must be escaped with a double percent, like "%%{name}" Non-Issues: =========== * I don't care about the rpmlint spell-check warnings :-) * I don't know how to test that this package is working as it should be, but I assume you do and the test that you have disabled was a false postive. Does upstream expect this test to pass and have you reported the problem to them? Full report follows below... Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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. [-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [!]: 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]: 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 Python: [x]: Python eggs must not download any dependencies during the build process. [x]: A package which is used by another package via an egg interface should provide egg info. [x]: Package meets the Packaging Guidelines::Python [x]: Binary eggs must be removed in %prep ===== 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: python-javaobj-0-0.1.20142011svn31.fc21.noarch.rpm python-javaobj-0-0.1.20142011svn31.fc21.src.rpm python-javaobj.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deserializing -> serializing, desalinizing, depersonalizing python-javaobj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserialized -> serialized, materialized, editorialized python-javaobj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son python-javaobj.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmarshaling -> marshaling python-javaobj.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) deserializing -> serializing, desalinizing, depersonalizing python-javaobj.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US deserialized -> serialized, materialized, editorialized python-javaobj.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US json -> son, j son python-javaobj.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US unmarshaling -> marshaling python-javaobj.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %{name} python-javaobj.src:18: W: macro-in-comment %{rev} python-javaobj.src: W: invalid-url Source0: python-javaobj-0svn31.tar.xz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 11 warnings. Requires -------- python-javaobj (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): python python(abi) Provides -------- python-javaobj: python-javaobj
Hi Mat, thanks for the review. > Please add comments about the separate COPYRIGHT file, where is this from? > Query upstream to include a copy of the license if they do not do so. The Apache license suggests/recommends/requires to include such a file, so I've created one as a starting point: http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 →APPENDIX Well, the project moved / seems to fork at github with the same name: https://github.com/tcalmant/python-javaobj > Description contains lines longer than 80 characters fixed. > Package must BR: python2-devel or python3-devel I want to delay a python3 package for now because I do not yet actively use Py3 but I should, you should not have to tell me that. ;) > "maven-local" will pull all of these in for you fixed. > Rpmlint warnings about macros in comments fixed / gone. > Does upstream expect this test to pass and have you reported the problem to them? I guess upstream is aware about the outdated opcodes, there are already some bugs at upstream mentioned with issues at newer java classes or the like. Let's assume that's not that easy to fix. Somehow this module is also available via PyPi, the last commit is from end of 2012 (see my adjustment to release tag). And again, the fork at github looks better: The readme mentions the failing swing test as TODO. - Release #0.3: Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/python-javaobj/python-javaobj.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/python-javaobj/python-javaobj-0-0.3.20131228gitb8ae821.fc20.src.rpm build rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8439290
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2) > > Package must BR: python2-devel or python3-devel > I want to delay a python3 package for now because I do not yet actively use > Py3 but I should, you should not have to tell me that. ;) > Then you should "BR: python2-devel" as it says in the guidelines: See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Python#BuildRequires
Release #0.4: Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/python-javaobj/python-javaobj.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/py/python-javaobj/python-javaobj-0-0.4.20131228gitb8ae821.fc21.src.rpm build rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8539627
Okay great, approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: python-javaobj Short Description: Python module for serializing and deserializing Java objects Upstream URL: https://code.google.com/p/python-javaobj Owners: raphgro Branches: f21 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
python-javaobj-0-0.4.20131228gitb8ae821.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/python-javaobj-0-0.4.20131228gitb8ae821.fc21
python-javaobj-0-0.4.20131228gitb8ae821.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
python-javaobj-0-0.4.20131228gitb8ae821.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.