Bug 1287466 - Review Request: zinc - Incremental scala compiler
Review Request: zinc - Incremental scala compiler
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
Unspecified Unspecified
unspecified Severity unspecified
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Michael Simacek
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
Blocks: 1262240
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2015-12-02 02:40 EST by Mikolaj Izdebski
Modified: 2015-12-02 10:55 EST (History)
2 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2015-12-02 10:55:43 EST
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
msimacek: fedora‑review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Mikolaj Izdebski 2015-12-02 02:40:08 EST
Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/zinc/zinc.spec
SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/zinc/zinc-0.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Zinc is a stand-alone version of sbt's incremental compiler.
Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk
Comment 1 Mikolaj Izdebski 2015-12-02 02:42:06 EST
Explanation why I didn't package the latest version:
Zinc is adapter for SBT incremental compiler and as such it requires a strict version of SBT. In fedora we have an old version of SBT (0.13.1) which corresponds to Zinc 0.3.1.
Comment 2 Michael Simacek 2015-12-02 07:36:56 EST
Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

- There are bundled binaries in the source - dist folder contains linux,
  mac and windows executables. Also nailgun client source is bundled.
  It's obvious that it's not used, but I'd still like to see it removed
  in prep.
- There should be some comment for the patch, it's not obvious what the
  patch does and whether it's Fedora specific

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

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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)", "Unknown or generated". 119 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: 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 10240 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]: 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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[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]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
     when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[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 =====

[!]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[-]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[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
[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.

[-]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

===== EXTRA items =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: zinc-0.3.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
zinc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scala -> Scala, scalar, scale
zinc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sbt's -> set's, sot's, Sb's
zinc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scala -> Scala, scalar, scale
zinc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sbt's -> set's, sot's, Sb's
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

zinc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):


Source checksums
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
https://github.com/typesafehub/zinc/archive/v0.3.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a58597207066bbadb4e95bd4ea0fec24a4924a0c9cb22f64ff1c8a839308435a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a58597207066bbadb4e95bd4ea0fec24a4924a0c9cb22f64ff1c8a839308435a
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/com/typesafe/zinc/zinc/0.3.1/zinc-0.3.1.pom :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7486cf1597c429c2fd00d22b620bed29f22aca06b50f1e4c0e0466a80d8b6440
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7486cf1597c429c2fd00d22b620bed29f22aca06b50f1e4c0e0466a80d8b6440

Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1287466
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

The mentioned issues are minor, you can fix them during the import. APPROVED
Comment 3 Gwyn Ciesla 2015-12-02 09:29:29 EST
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/zinc

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