Bug 1177442 - Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
Summary: Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP...
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Alec Leamas
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: 1177443
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2014-12-27 13:06 UTC by gil cattaneo
Modified: 2015-05-12 20:41 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version: jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc21
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-05-12 20:41:37 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
leamas.alec: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description gil cattaneo 2014-12-27 13:06:04 UTC
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jbosh.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
Description: 
A maintained fork of com.kenai.jbosh for XEP-0124:
Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH).
This library is used by Smack to support XEP-206:
XMPP over BOSH. In contrast to org.kenai.jbosh,
this jBOSH library uses the Apache Commons HttpClient 4.

Fedora Account System Username: gil

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8485533

Comment 3 Alec Leamas 2015-04-18 06:21:54 UTC
I'll do this one

Comment 4 Alec Leamas 2015-05-01 20:41:43 UTC
Sorry for delay, have been away for a spring holiday.

Basically all looks OK.

The naming is a bit awkward. If the "real" jbosh which this is forked from ever get packaged, this fork have acquired the generic name. I think this should have a naming which not is plain jbosh for this reason. No guidelines to refer to besides "apply common sense".

Comment 5 gil cattaneo 2015-05-01 20:59:27 UTC
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #4)
> Sorry for delay, have been away for a spring holiday.
> 
> Basically all looks OK.
> 
> The naming is a bit awkward. If the "real" jbosh which this is forked from
> ever get packaged, this fork have acquired the generic name. I think this
> should have a naming which not is plain jbosh for this reason. No guidelines
> to refer to besides "apply common sense".
Hoping that no one is the idea to package the "real" jbosh, i prefer keep the current name.
Some reasons no import com.kenai.jbosh:
- 1 unmaintained (latest update almost 4 years ago Version to 0.6.0 )
- 2 use old libraries, org.xlightweb:xlightweb is also unmaintained

Comment 6 Alec Leamas 2015-05-01 21:05:00 UTC
Fair enough.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
[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)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/al/tmp/FedoraReview/1177442-jbosh/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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).
[?]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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 %license.
[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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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:
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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 jbosh-
     javadoc
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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.

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: jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          jbosh-javadoc-0.8.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
jbosh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kenai -> Aiken
jbosh.noarch: W: no-documentation
jbosh.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kenai -> Aiken
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
jbosh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US kenai -> Aiken
jbosh.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


Requires
--------
jbosh-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils

jbosh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient)
    mvn(xpp3:xpp3)


Provides
--------
jbosh-javadoc:
    jbosh-javadoc

jbosh:
    jbosh
    mvn(org.igniterealtime.jbosh:jbosh)
    mvn(org.igniterealtime.jbosh:jbosh:pom:)
    osgi(org.igniterealtime.jbosh)


Source checksums
----------------
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
https://github.com/igniterealtime/jbosh/archive/0.8.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 30ef87bff09cecb96dc21dcae2f685526f09151f6e422d603ca49c8218511039
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 30ef87bff09cecb96dc21dcae2f685526f09151f6e422d603ca49c8218511039
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/igniterealtime/jbosh/jbosh/0.8.0/jbosh-0.8.0.pom :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 66a2d0becdf822bc11fa4ba6d5ebac92f4689b7b4172a8adc8176026efb83818
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 66a2d0becdf822bc11fa4ba6d5ebac92f4689b7b4172a8adc8176026efb83818


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (a8a2355) last change: 2015-04-23
Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 1177442 --no-build
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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Comment 7 Alec Leamas 2015-05-01 21:05:37 UTC
All looks good.

*** Approved

Comment 8 gil cattaneo 2015-05-01 21:13:31 UTC
Thanks!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jbosh
Short Description: XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
Upstream URL: https://github.com/igniterealtime/jbosh
Owners: gil
Branches: f21 f22
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-05-01 22:18:43 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2015-05-01 23:11:46 UTC
jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc22

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2015-05-01 23:32:45 UTC
jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc21

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2015-05-03 17:20:05 UTC
jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2015-05-12 20:41:37 UTC
jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.


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