Bug 1178861 - Review Request: mapdb - Java database engine
Summary: Review Request: mapdb - Java database engine
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Marek Goldmann
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks: bigdata-review
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2015-01-05 14:55 UTC by gil cattaneo
Modified: 2015-01-30 04:42 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: mapdb-1.0.6-1.fc21
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2015-01-30 04:42:44 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
mgoldman: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description gil cattaneo 2015-01-05 14:55:18 UTC
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/mapdb.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/mapdb-1.0.6-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description:
MapDB provides concurrent Maps, Sets and
Queues backed by disk storage or off-heap
memory. It is a fast and easy to use
embedded Java database engine.

Fedora Account System Username: gil

Apache Flume dependency

Comment 1 gil cattaneo 2015-01-05 15:14:22 UTC
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8529353

Comment 2 Marek Goldmann 2015-01-14 12:45:31 UTC
I'll take this review.

Comment 3 gil cattaneo 2015-01-16 12:47:27 UTC
Ping...?

Comment 4 Marek Goldmann 2015-01-18 11:34:55 UTC
Package Review
==============

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.
[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)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "LGPL", "Unknown or generated",
     "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 117 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[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.
     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]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[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.

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
     Note: Test run failed
[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:
[x]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in mapdb-
     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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
     Note: Test run failed
[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: mapdb-1.0.6-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          mapdb-javadoc-1.0.6-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          mapdb-1.0.6-1.fc22.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
<mock-chroot>[root@mistress /]# rpmlint mapdb-javadoc mapdb
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
<mock-chroot>[root@mistress /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



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

mapdb (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
mapdb-javadoc:
    mapdb-javadoc

mapdb:
    mapdb
    mvn(org.mapdb:mapdb)
    mvn(org.mapdb:mapdb:pom:)
    osgi(org.mapdb.mapdb)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jankotek/MapDB/archive/mapdb-1.0.6.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f866dc539622686b0260211a2e1e827bbe23c6e2ab6b8325e61bd18b53c87f19
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f866dc539622686b0260211a2e1e827bbe23c6e2ab6b8325e61bd18b53c87f19


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1178861
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
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


========
APPROVED
========

Comment 5 gil cattaneo 2015-01-18 11:39:39 UTC
Thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: mapdb
Short Description: Java database engine
Upstream URL: http://www.mapdb.org/
Owners: gil
Branches: f21
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-01-18 22:34:27 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2015-01-19 00:34:05 UTC
mapdb-1.0.6-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mapdb-1.0.6-1.fc21

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2015-01-20 21:03:57 UTC
mapdb-1.0.6-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2015-01-30 04:42:44 UTC
mapdb-1.0.6-1.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.