Fedora Account System Username: jkang Spec URL: https://jkang.fedorapeople.org/felix-scr.spec SRPM URL: https://jkang.fedorapeople.org/felix-scr-1.8.2-1.fc21.src.rpm Description: Apache Felix Service Component Runtime implementation of OSGi Declarative Services Specification
see https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Licensing:Main&rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses you should change License field in ASL 2.0
*** Bug 1197037 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I'll review this one.
This fails to build in rawhide for me, because of this: [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project org.apache.felix.scr: Could not resolve dependencies for project org.apache.felix:org.apache.felix.scr:bundle:1.8.2: Cannot access central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact org.osgi:org.osgi.enterprise:jar:5.0.0 has not been downloaded from it before. -> [Help 1] It does not seem to be in fedora. So we'd either have to patch those things out or package it as well. gil seemed to have used version 1.6.x because of this, but this also doesn't seem to be good since the latest version should be packaged in Fedora not some older one.
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #4) > This fails to build in rawhide for me, because of this: > [ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project org.apache.felix.scr: Could not > resolve dependencies for project > org.apache.felix:org.apache.felix.scr:bundle:1.8.2: Cannot access central > (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact > org.osgi:org.osgi.enterprise:jar:5.0.0 has not been downloaded from it > before. -> [Help 1] > > It does not seem to be in fedora. So we'd either have to patch those things > out or package it as well. gil seemed to have used version 1.6.x because of > this, but this also doesn't seem to be good since the latest version should > be packaged in Fedora not some older one. Yes, but we haven't org.osgi:org.osgi.enterprise:jar:5.0.0 & org.osgi:org.osgi.core:jar:5.0.0. they are not free.
org.osgi:org.osgi.enterprise:jar:5.0.0 org.osgi:org.osgi.core:jar:5.0.0 these package does have a license (http://www.osgi.org/Main/OSGiSpecificationLicense) that is not allowed in Fedora because it forbids modifications. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Bad_Licenses
I've been looking at the code that needs osgi.enterprise and it seems to be replacable with felix.configadmin 1.8.0 similar to how osgi.core was replaced with felix.framework 4.6.0 Fedora has felix.configadmin 1.4.0 [1] though so we'd need to see if we can get that package updated too. [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/felix-configadmin/ The amount of patches needed away from upstream is a little concerning though.
(In reply to Jie Kang from comment #7) > I've been looking at the code that needs osgi.enterprise and it seems to be > replacable with felix.configadmin 1.8.0 similar to how osgi.core was > replaced with felix.framework 4.6.0 > > Fedora has felix.configadmin 1.4.0 [1] though so we'd need to see if we can > get that package updated too. > > [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/felix-configadmin/ > > The amount of patches needed away from upstream is a little concerning > though. This would need confirmation from upstream.
I've updated the spec and srpm to use felix-scr-1.6.2 instead as this version doesn't depend on the enterprise/core jars. Spec URL: https://jkang.fedorapeople.org/felix-scr.spec SRPM URL: https://jkang.fedorapeople.org/felix-scr-1.6.2-2.fc21.src.rpm
Here is an informal review of felix-scr 1.6.2. It built fine for me. Thanks! Package Review ============== [!] URL in spec should be: http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-service-component-runtime.html [!] There are references in spec to version 1.8.x. Please fix to use 1.6.2 instead. [!] Summary in spec should be: "Summary: Apache Felix Declarative Services Runtime" [!] Please remove commented out "#BuildRequires: mvn(org.eclipse:osgi)" Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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 %license. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/felix This should be OK. I don't think this is specific to felix-scr. This is probably a bug in felix-osgi-core or some base package all other felix packages should require. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/felix, /usr/share/maven-poms/felix This is OK. Same as above. [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. [?]: 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 30720 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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]: 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: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) 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 .mfiles file list 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 felix- scr-javadoc [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. It's OK for 1.6.2 rather than 1.8.2 to be packaged, since 1.8.2 version uses non-free org.osgi:osgi.core/enterprise [x]: 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 [?]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: felix-scr-1.6.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm felix-scr-javadoc-1.6.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm felix-scr-1.6.2-2.fc21.src.rpm felix-scr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: org.apache.felix.scr-1.6.2.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Once the comment gets updated how to generate the source tarball this should be fine. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
(In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #10) > Here is an informal review of felix-scr 1.6.2. It built fine for me. Thanks! > > Package Review > ============== > > [!] URL in spec should be: > > http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-service- > component-runtime.html Done > [!] There are references in spec to version 1.8.x. Please fix to use > 1.6.2 instead. Fixed > [!] Summary in spec should be: > "Summary: Apache Felix Declarative Services Runtime" Fixed > [!] Please remove commented out "#BuildRequires: mvn(org.eclipse:osgi)" > Removed > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > > ===== 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 %license. > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. > [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/felix > This should be OK. I don't think this is specific to felix-scr. This is > probably a bug in felix-osgi-core or some base package all other felix > packages should require. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/felix, > /usr/share/maven-poms/felix > This is OK. Same as above. > [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. > [?]: 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 30720 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: 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]: 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: > [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) 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 .mfiles file list 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. I have sent a message to felix-dev list about including the license in the source repository. > [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 felix- > scr-javadoc > [?]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > It's OK for 1.6.2 rather than 1.8.2 to be packaged, since 1.8.2 version > uses non-free org.osgi:osgi.core/enterprise > [x]: 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 > [?]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: felix-scr-1.6.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > felix-scr-javadoc-1.6.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > felix-scr-1.6.2-2.fc21.src.rpm > felix-scr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: org.apache.felix.scr-1.6.2.tar.gz > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > Once the comment gets updated how to generate the source tarball this should > be fine. > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. The spec and srpm have been updated with the fixes. Thank you very much for the review!
Please also include a specific revision you've used for the svn export command. This makes it easier to reproducer the tarball should upstream add commits for some reason.
Issues: 1) spec file must be named "%{name}.spec", where %{name} is component name, in this case "felix-scr" 2) LICENSE and NOTICE must be installed as %license Otherwise looks good. I will post full review once the above problems are resolved.
(In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #13) > Issues: > 1) spec file must be named "%{name}.spec", where %{name} is component name, > in this case "felix-scr" I don't understand this one. Isn't this the case? From comment 9 I see this URL: https://jkang.fedorapeople.org/felix-scr.spec So it's "felix-scr.spec". Then "Name: felix-scr" is in that spec. I'm confused...
The spec URL is meaningless. What matters is the name of spec file inside srpm, it is "felix-scr-1.6.2.spec", but it should be "felix-scr.spec" Reproducer: curl -s https://jkang.fedorapeople.org/felix-scr-1.6.2-2.fc21.src.rpm | rpm2cpio | cpio -it | grep spec
OK, that makes sense now. Thanks for clarifying. I missed this in the earlier review. Nice catch!
(In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #13) > Issues: > 1) spec file must be named "%{name}.spec", where %{name} is component name, > in this case "felix-scr" > 2) LICENSE and NOTICE must be installed as %license > > Otherwise looks good. I will post full review once the above problems are > resolved. I've fixed the name of the spec file in the srpm and added LICENSE and NOTICE from the tarball under %license. SPEC URL: https://jkang.fedorapeople.org/felix-scr.spec SRPM URL: https://jkang.fedorapeople.org/felix-scr-1.6.2-3.fc21.src.rpm Please let me know of any other issues to address. Thanks!
Looks good now. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem [x] rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. [x] The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x] The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. [x] The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. [x] The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. [x] The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [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 must be included in %doc. [x] The spec file must be written in American English. [x] The spec file for the package MUST be legible. [x] The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. [x] The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. [x] If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. [x] All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. [x] The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. [x] Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [x] Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. [x] If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. [x] A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [x] A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations.) [x] Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [x] Each package must consistently use macros. [x] The package must contain code, or permissible content. [x] Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). [x] If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. [x] Static libraries must be in a -static package. [x] Development files must be in a -devel package. [x] In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} [x] Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built. [x] Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. [x] Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. rpmlint output -------------- felix-scr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: org.apache.felix.scr-1.6.2.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: felix-scr Short Description: Implementation of the Declarative Services specification 1.2 Upstream URL: http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-service-component-runtime.html Owners: jkang Branches: f22 f23 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
felix-scr-1.6.2-3.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/felix-scr-1.6.2-3.fc22
felix-scr-1.6.2-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
felix-scr-1.6.2-3.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.