Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jboss-logging-tools1.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jboss-logging-tools1-1.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: This pacakge contains JBoss Logging I18n Annotation Processor Fedora Account System Username: gil weld-core build dep related to: https://issues.jboss.org/browse/WELD-2177 https://issues.jboss.org/browse/LOGTOOL-110
Taken.
> # Not available license file https://issues.jboss.org/browse/LOGTOOL-107 Fixed upstream: https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/pull/48/commits/9a07a05d8437948c353fd13ce3311d0c5c4c0a79 Please apply this patch.
ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf builddep --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root//builddir/build/SRPMS/jboss-logging-tools1-1.2.1-1.fc25.src.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts No matching package to install: 'mvn(org.jboss.jdeparser:jdeparser:1)' Not all dependencies satisfied Error: Some packages could not be found. Wait for bug #1344443 till jdeparser1 found its way into rawhide.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3) > ERROR: Command failed: > # /usr/bin/dnf builddep --installroot > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root//builddir/build/SRPMS/jboss-logging- > tools1-1.2.1-1.fc25.src.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts > No matching package to install: 'mvn(org.jboss.jdeparser:jdeparser:1)' > Not all dependencies satisfied > Error: Some packages could not be found. > > Wait for bug #1344443 till jdeparser1 found its way into rawhide. you could use: fedora-review -b 1344446 -m fedora-rawhide-ARCH --local-repo [PATH TO LOCAL REPO] or fedora-review -b 1344446 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-[ARCH] -L [PATH TO LOCAL REPO]
Does not work: INFO: installing package(s): /home/builder/fedora-review/1344443-jdeparser1/results/jdeparser1-1.0.0 -1.fc25.noarch.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1344443-jdeparser1/results/jdeparser1-javadoc-1.0.0-1 .fc25.noarch.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1344443-jdeparser1/results/jdeparser1-1.0.0-1.fc25.src. rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/builder/fedora-review/1344443-jdeparser1/results/jde parser1-1.0.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1344443-jdeparser1/results/jdeparser1-ja vadoc-1.0.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm /home/builder/fedora-review/1344443-jdeparser1/results/jdeparser1-1.0. 0-1.fc25.src.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts None None 06-17 12:06 root INFO Install command returned error code 30 How to remove --disableplugin=local from dnf?
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #5) > Does not work: > > INFO: installing package(s): Please, remove these useless rpm > /home/builder/fedora-review/1344443-jdeparser1/results/jdeparser1-javadoc-1. > 0.0-1 > .fc25.noarch.rpm > /home/builder/fedora-review/1344443-jdeparser1/results/jdeparser1-1.0.0-1. > fc25.src. > rpm > ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. > # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ > --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install > /home/builder/fedora-review/1344443-jdeparser1/results/jde > parser1-1.0.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm > /home/builder/fedora-review/1344443-jdeparser1/results/jdeparser1-ja > vadoc-1.0.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm > /home/builder/fedora-review/1344443-jdeparser1/results/jdeparser1-1.0. > 0-1.fc25.src.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts > How to remove --disableplugin=local from dnf? you should create a new folder in your $HOME named deps or dependencies (or as you want) and run the command above where [PATH TO LOCAL REPO] is the new folder with the rpms e.g. fedora-review -b 1344446 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -L /home/builder/deps
Now f-r gives me FTBFS: Exception: Following dependencies were not resolved and requires cannot be generated. Either remove the dependencies from pom.xml or add proper packages to BuildRequires: org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-annotations:1.2.1.Final required by org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7) > Now f-r gives me FTBFS: > > Exception: Following dependencies were not resolved and requires cannot be > generated. Either remove the dependencies from pom.xml or add proper > packages to BuildRequires: > org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-annotations:1.2.1.Final required by > org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor I rebuilt jdeparser1, wait half an hour from the end of http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14534141 After run this cmd to safely use jdeparser1-1.0.0-2.fc25 mock -r fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --scrub=all
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jboss-logging-tools1.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jboss-logging-tools1-1.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14534469
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff: Only in /home/builder/fedora-review/1344446-jboss-logging-tools1/ upstream-unpacked/Source0: 1.2.1.Final.tar.gz. Only in /home/builder/fedora-review/1344446-jboss-logging-tools1/ srpm-unpacked/1.2.1.Final.tar.gz-extract: jboss-logging-tools-1.2.1.Final. => Please fix. - Several source files without license header. We assume they go with the general LGPLv2+. => Please poke upstream to finally clarify. ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora-review/1344446-jboss-logging- tools1/licensecheck.txt => okay, see above. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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 jboss- logging-tools1-javadoc => ignore. Noarch package and javadoc is not runtime. [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. => compatibility package. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. => Tests run by maven and all passed. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: jboss-logging-tools1-1.2.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm jboss-logging-tools1-javadoc-1.2.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm jboss-logging-tools1-1.2.1-1.fc25.src.rpm jboss-logging-tools1.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- jboss-logging-tools1.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- jboss-logging-tools1 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(org.jboss.jdeparser:jdeparser:1) jboss-logging-tools1-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools Provides -------- jboss-logging-tools1: jboss-logging-tools1 mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-annotations:1) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-annotations:1.2.1) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-annotations:1.2.1.Final) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-annotations:pom:1) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-annotations:pom:1.2.1) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-annotations:pom:1.2.1.Final) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor:1) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor:1.2.1) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor:1.2.1.Final) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor:pom:1) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor:pom:1.2.1) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-processor:pom:1.2.1.Final) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-tools-parent:pom:1) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-tools-parent:pom:1.2.1) mvn(org.jboss.logging:jboss-logging-tools-parent:pom:1.2.1.Final) jboss-logging-tools1-javadoc: jboss-logging-tools1-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/archive/1.2.1.Final.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 27f2443a70fe6f739cdd0406429aeeebe38a9665cc45718691f07cc244f80c58 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b462e5c36f922f2e7518270a9adad68c806e5e23b7ce294c843d2f048bbb8f81 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1344446 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Created attachment 1169191 [details] licensecheck.txt
APPROVED. Mind the two issues below.
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #10) > Issues: > ======= > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff: > Only in /home/builder/fedora-review/1344446-jboss-logging-tools1/ > upstream-unpacked/Source0: 1.2.1.Final.tar.gz. > Only in /home/builder/fedora-review/1344446-jboss-logging-tools1/ > srpm-unpacked/1.2.1.Final.tar.gz-extract: jboss-logging-tools-1.2.1.Final. > => Please fix. This is really weird ... I also run fedora-rewiev ant his is the result: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/archive/1.2.1.Final.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 27f2443a70fe6f739cdd0406429aeeebe38a9665cc45718691f07cc244f80c58 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 27f2443a70fe6f739cdd0406429aeeebe38a9665cc45718691f07cc244f80c58 It seems that you have a problem on your system if it fails every time MD5sum but I have downloaded a new source archive, just in case ... > - Several source files without license header. We assume they go with the > general LGPLv2+. > => Please poke upstream to finally clarify. Done https://issues.jboss.org/browse/LOGTOOL-113 Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jboss-logging-tools1.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jboss-logging-tools1-1.2.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
Thanks for the review! create new SCM requests: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6072 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6073
It complains about the file name of the source tarball. One is with version only but the other one with project name in prior: 1.2.1.Final.tar.gz vs. jboss-logging-tools-1.2.1.Final.tar.gz
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #15) > It complains about the file name of the source tarball. One is with version > only but the other one with project name in prior: > 1.2.1.Final.tar.gz vs. jboss-logging-tools-1.2.1.Final.tar.gz I do not understand what to do with this. I do not care to change it. Because if you have a look in https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/releases/tag is not listed as one $ wget https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/archive/6a3048d0d1c15ed9cb0dc3d45c04783e85c78081.tar.gz#/jboss-logging-tools-6a3048d.tar.gz --2016-06-18 13:48:14-- https://github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/archive/6a3048d0d1c15ed9cb0dc3d45c04783e85c78081.tar.gz Resolution of github.com (github.com)... 192.30.252.128 Connect to github.com (github.com)|192.30.252.128|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 302 Found Position: https://codeload.github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/tar.gz/6a3048d0d1c15ed9cb0dc3d45c04783e85c78081 [follows] --2016-06-18 13:48:15-- https://codeload.github.com/jboss-logging/jboss-logging-tools/tar.gz/6a3048d0d1c15ed9cb0dc3d45c04783e85c78081 Resolution of codeload.github.com (codeload.github.com)... 192.30.253.120 Connect to codeload.github.com (codeload.github.com)|192.30.253.120|:443... connected. HTTP request sent, awaiting response... 200 OK Length: not specified [application/x-gzip] Saving in: "6a3048d0d1c15ed9cb0dc3d45c04783e85c78081.tar.gz" 6a3048d0d1c15ed9cb0dc3d45c04 [ <=> ] 74,89K 206KB/s in 0,4s 2016-06-18 13:48:16 (206 KB/s) - "6a3048d0d1c15ed9cb0dc3d45c04783e85c78081.tar.gz" saved [76683]
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/jboss-logging-tools1
jboss-logging-tools1-1.2.1-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-701d52c373
(In reply to Jon Ciesla from comment #17) > Package request has been approved: > https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/jboss-logging-tools1 thanks
jboss-logging-tools1-1.2.1-1.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-2016-701d52c373
jboss-logging-tools1-1.2.1-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.