Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/testing/concurrentunit.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/testing/concurrentunit-0.4.2-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Toolkit for testing multi-threaded and asynchronous applications Fedora Account System Username: raphgro Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12898241
raphgro's scratch build of concurrentunit-0.4.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12898241
(In reply to Upstream Release Monitoring from comment #1) > raphgro's scratch build of concurrentunit-0.4.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide > failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12898241 Error: nothing provides mvn(org.codehaus.groovy:groovy-all) needed by xbean-4.4-2.fc24.noarch Obviously, not a fault of my package.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2) > (In reply to Upstream Release Monitoring from comment #1) > > raphgro's scratch build of concurrentunit-0.4.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide > > failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12898241 > > Error: nothing provides mvn(org.codehaus.groovy:groovy-all) needed by > xbean-4.4-2.fc24.noarch > > Obviously, not a fault of my package. The issues is related to newer gradle macros (... maybe ...) i open a bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1305015 the bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287384 has nothing to do with this problem
raphgro's scratch build of concurrentunit-0.4.2-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12903946
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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1305365-concurrentunit/licensecheck.txt Source files are missing license headers. Would you please contact upstream to fix it? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification concurrentunit-concurrentunit-0.4.2/src/main/java/net/jodah/concurrentunit/ConcurrentTestCase.java concurrentunit-concurrentunit-0.4.2/src/main/java/net/jodah/concurrentunit/Waiter.java concurrentunit-concurrentunit-0.4.2/src/main/java/net/jodah/concurrentunit/internal/ReentrantCircuit.java [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. [?]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in concurrentunit-javadoc [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [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 architectures. [x]: %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: concurrentunit-0.4.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm concurrentunit-javadoc-0.4.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm concurrentunit-0.4.2-1.fc25.src.rpm concurrentunit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti concurrentunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti concurrentunit.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/concurrentunit/README.md concurrentunit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti concurrentunit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory concurrentunit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti concurrentunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti concurrentunit.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/concurrentunit/README.md 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- concurrentunit-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools concurrentunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): hamcrest java-headless javapackages-tools Provides -------- concurrentunit-javadoc: concurrentunit-javadoc concurrentunit: concurrentunit mvn(net.jodah:concurrentunit) mvn(net.jodah:concurrentunit:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jhalterman/concurrentunit/archive/concurrentunit-0.4.2.tar.gz#/concurrentunit-0.4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d82ac01705e0e434ed6e3924e22b1143f55b938f07836b1b3c711f411dadf16f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d82ac01705e0e434ed6e3924e22b1143f55b938f07836b1b3c711f411dadf16f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1305365 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
ISSUES: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 10 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1305365-concurrentunit/licensecheck.txt Source files are missing license headers. Would you please contact upstream to fix it? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification concurrentunit-concurrentunit-0.4.2/src/main/java/net/jodah/concurrentunit/ConcurrentTestCase.java concurrentunit-concurrentunit-0.4.2/src/main/java/net/jodah/concurrentunit/Waiter.java concurrentunit-concurrentunit-0.4.2/src/main/java/net/jodah/concurrentunit/internal/ReentrantCircuit.java NON blocking issues: [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. if you remove <optional>true</optional> you don't need to add Requires: hamcrest concurrentunit.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/concurrentunit/README.md
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13298334
@Gil Unfortunately. the review swap with arquillian-core and shrinkwrap-resolver does not work for me cause both packages are too confusing for me. Though, I'm still interested in doing any other review swap, do you have some "simpler" request to swap with? I hope you don't take it personally now, it was not meant such as.
From my point of view the Apache Software License 2.0 is fine, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#SoftwareLicenses But it looks like that upstream has forgotten to add a header to the License in tarball. See APPENDIX: How to apply the Apache License to your work http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 I suggest to ask at fedora-legal mailing list if it is really necessary that upstream have to add this header. Rest of the package looks good and i can approve it if this point is clear.
Gil and Wolfgang, thanks for your hints to license improvement. I reported to upstream: https://github.com/jhalterman/concurrentunit/issues/12
Spec URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/testing/concurrentunit.spec SRPM URL: https://raphgro.fedorapeople.org/review/java/testing/concurrentunit-0.4.2-2.fc23.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13519566 %changelog * Thu Mar 31 2016 Raphael Groner <projects.rg> - 0.4.2-2 - add patch for license header - fix line delimiter - unbundle hamcrest
APPROVED! 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [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 2 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 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 Note: Can't find any BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [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 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 concurrentunit-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: concurrentunit-0.4.2-2.fc25.noarch.rpm concurrentunit-javadoc-0.4.2-2.fc25.noarch.rpm concurrentunit-0.4.2-2.fc25.src.rpm concurrentunit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti concurrentunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti concurrentunit.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti concurrentunit.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory concurrentunit.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) multi -> mulch, mufti concurrentunit.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- concurrentunit-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools concurrentunit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(org.hamcrest:hamcrest-all) Provides -------- concurrentunit-javadoc: concurrentunit-javadoc concurrentunit: concurrentunit mvn(net.jodah:concurrentunit) mvn(net.jodah:concurrentunit:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jhalterman/concurrentunit/archive/concurrentunit-0.4.2.tar.gz#/concurrentunit-0.4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d82ac01705e0e434ed6e3924e22b1143f55b938f07836b1b3c711f411dadf16f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d82ac01705e0e434ed6e3924e22b1143f55b938f07836b1b3c711f411dadf16f Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -r -n concurrentunit -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
Thanks for the review!
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/concurrentunit
concurrentunit-0.4.2-2.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8efc9f229e
concurrentunit-0.4.2-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6b8e3042cb
concurrentunit-0.4.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-6b8e3042cb
concurrentunit-0.4.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8efc9f229e
concurrentunit-0.4.2-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
concurrentunit-0.4.2-2.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.