Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jsonld-java.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jsonld-java-0.5.1-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: This is a Java implementation of the JSON-LD specification and the JSON-LD-API specification. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jsonld-java.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jsonld-java-0.6.0-1.fc22.src.rpm - update to 0.6.0
gil's scratch build of jsonld-java-0.7.0-1.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11292059
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jsonld-java.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jsonld-java-0.7.0-1.fc22.src.rpm - update to 0.7.0 - removed the tests that require a web connection Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11292220
gil's scratch build of jsonld-java-0.7.0-1.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11292220
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software' ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/michael/Temp/1241447-jsonld- java/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: 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. [!]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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: [x]: 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 jsonld- java-parent , jsonld-java-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]: 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: jsonld-java-0.7.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm jsonld-java-parent-0.7.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm jsonld-java-javadoc-0.7.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm jsonld-java-0.7.0-1.fc24.src.rpm jsonld-java-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory jsonld-java-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- jsonld-java-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils jsonld-java-parent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils jsonld-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind) mvn(commons-io:commons-io) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient-cache) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpcore) mvn(org.slf4j:jcl-over-slf4j) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) Provides -------- jsonld-java-javadoc: jsonld-java-javadoc jsonld-java-parent: jsonld-java-parent mvn(com.github.jsonld-java:jsonld-java-parent:pom:) jsonld-java: jsonld-java mvn(com.github.jsonld-java:jsonld-java) mvn(com.github.jsonld-java:jsonld-java::tests:) mvn(com.github.jsonld-java:jsonld-java:pom:) osgi(com.github.jsonld-java) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jsonld-java/jsonld-java/archive/da156eebe0fdd2cee34a8bb603d64979a281d389/jsonld-java-da156eebe0fdd2cee34a8bb603d64979a281d389.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1cff731c697fe94fe98dfaa107c04750f9324162e44bca1c58b47254b75347c6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1cff731c697fe94fe98dfaa107c04750f9324162e44bca1c58b47254b75347c6 Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./jsonld-java-da156eebe0fdd2cee34a8bb603d64979a281d389/core/src/test/resources/nested.jar Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1241447 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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
(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #5) > Package Review > Issues: > ======= > - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build > Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- > built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software' > Jar and class files in source > ----------------------------- > ./jsonld-java-da156eebe0fdd2cee34a8bb603d64979a281d389/core/src/test/ > resources/nested.jar This is not bundled software. This is test resource in its preferable form for editing, so it qualifies as source code IMHO. If you want me to remove this artifact, do not leave me no choice to disable the suite of tests. I'd rather not because the artifact :::tests: it is useful for other jsonld-java's modules
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6) > This is not bundled software. This is test resource in its preferable form > for > editing, so it qualifies as source code IMHO. > If you want me to remove this artifact, do not leave me no choice to disable > the suite of tests. I'd rather not because the artifact :::tests: it is > useful for other jsonld-java's modules I am not asking you to remove the jar file or disable tests. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-built_dependencies > In particular *.class and *.jar files from upstream releases MUST NOT be used during build of Fedora packages and they MUST NOT be included in binary RPM. The guidelines are strict about this. This package violates them in both cases. Does upstream not provide a way to create the jar during the build process?
(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #7) > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6) > > This is not bundled software. This is test resource in its preferable form > > for > > editing, so it qualifies as source code IMHO. > > If you want me to remove this artifact, do not leave me no choice to disable > > the suite of tests. I'd rather not because the artifact :::tests: it is > > useful for other jsonld-java's modules > > I am not asking you to remove the jar file or disable tests. > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-built_dependencies > > In particular *.class and *.jar files from upstream releases MUST NOT be used during build of Fedora packages and they MUST NOT be included in binary RPM. > > The guidelines are strict about this. This package violates them in both > cases. I think it is meant only if they are used to build the library. in this case no. used only during the test suite. and its do not contains pre built library (*.class) > Does upstream not provide a way to create the jar during the build process? no
With the changes to the guidelines today bundling is largely allowed. Since the jar does not contain real binaries inside I don't feel it should be a blocker. you may wish to add a comment in the spec that the jar does not contain binary class files since it is shipped in a binary rpm. APPROVED
(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #9) > With the changes to the guidelines today bundling is largely allowed. Since > the jar does not contain real binaries inside I don't feel it should be a > blocker. you may wish to add a comment in the spec that the jar does not > contain binary class files since it is shipped in a binary rpm. > > APPROVED Thanks
Request for new package https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/packager/gil/requests https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/502 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/503
jsonld-java-0.7.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b1b74a6239
jsonld-java-0.7.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with $ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update jsonld-java' You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-b1b74a6239
jsonld-java-0.7.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.