Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/wildfly-common.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/wildfly-common-1.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: WildFly common utilities project. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== ISSUES ===== [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck: *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) ---------------------------- wildfly-common-1.1.0.Final/LICENSE Apache (v2.0) ------------- wildfly-common-1.1.0.Final/src/main/java/org/wildfly/common/Assert.java ...the rest of the files... Not sure whether it's a problem. [!]: Description is the same as the Summary. You should provide detailed information in description. ===== NON-BLOCKERS ===== [!]: Remove "A" in summary [!]: Clean lines about intellij Once the jetbarain-annotations is in rawhide and the package builds for rawhide in mock, it's good to go [!]: Documentation is missing (rpmlint) ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/rev/wildfly- common/licensecheck.txt [-]: 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 [-]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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: [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in wildfly- common-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest stable 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. [?]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: wildfly-common-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm wildfly-common-javadoc-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm wildfly-common-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm wildfly-common.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory wildfly-common.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- wildfly-common-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools wildfly-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(com.sun:tools) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging) Provides -------- wildfly-common-javadoc: wildfly-common-javadoc wildfly-common: mvn(org.wildfly.common:wildfly-common) mvn(org.wildfly.common:wildfly-common:pom:) wildfly-common Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-common/archive/1.1.0.Final.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 93c569ae55ce6ac2ed0ce310beda62f63995133cdd86b444ade0f0bc6b4fa25c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93c569ae55ce6ac2ed0ce310beda62f63995133cdd86b444ade0f0bc6b4fa25c Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/wildfly-common-1.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm 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 Tomas Repik from comment #1) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > ===== ISSUES ===== > [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed > output of licensecheck: > > *No copyright* Apache (v2.0) > ---------------------------- > wildfly-common-1.1.0.Final/LICENSE header of the license " Apache License Version 2.0, January 2004 http://www.apache.org/licenses/ TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR USE, REPRODUCTION, AND DISTRIBUTION " Really? is pretty sure that is ASL2.0 for some time that I can not use fedora-review. off or freezes my pc maybe another bug/s in F-R package? > Apache (v2.0) > ------------- > wildfly-common-1.1.0.Final/src/main/java/org/wildfly/common/Assert.java > ...the rest of the files... header of the Assert.java file "/* * JBoss, Home of Professional Open Source. * Copyright 2015 Red Hat, Inc., and individual contributors * as indicated by the @author tags. * * Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License"); * you may not use this file except in compliance with the License. * You may obtain a copy of the License at * * http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0 * * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software * distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS, * WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied. * See the License for the specific language governing permissions and * limitations under the License. */ package org.wildfly.common; /** * A set of assertions and checks. * * @author <a href="david.lloyd">David M. Lloyd</a> */ public final class Assert {" > Not sure whether it's a problem. Not mine or of this package, all file are under AS2 License (as reported by the headers) > [!]: Description is the same as the Summary. You should provide detailed > information in description. Done (if now for you is ok) > ===== NON-BLOCKERS ===== > [!]: Remove "A" in summary Done > [!]: Clean lines about intellij > Once the jetbarain-annotations is in rawhide and the package builds for > rawhide in mock, it's good to go Done > [!]: Documentation is missing (rpmlint) Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/wildfly-common.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/wildfly-common-1.1.0-2.fc23.src.rpm
All the issues fixed, the package builds in mock, and therefore gets my approval as I promised.
Thanks for the review! SCM request: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/5129 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/5130
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/wildfly-common
wildfly-common-1.1.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2915716619
wildfly-common-1.1.0-2.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-2016-2915716619
wildfly-common-1.1.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.