Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-core-rt.spec SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-core-rt-1.31-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Enunciate core classes that are needed at runtime Fedora Account System Username: dchen
Mmm, perhaps I should go with the whole enunciate instead.
hi Please, remove: Group: Development/Libraries Requires: enunciate-core-annotations Group: Documentation Requires: jpackage-utils Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Requires are generated by our java/maven tools Group fields are not necessary and change: Summary: Javadocs for %{name} in Summary: Javadoc for %{name} a rpmlint problem in less thanks
sorry for the noise, forgotten: remove %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} for avoid duplicate files use %license macro e.g. %files -f .mfiles %doc README.md %license license.txt notice.txt %files javadoc -f .mfiles-javadoc %license license.txt notice.txt
Thanks gil, Come to think of it, since I also need enunciate-core and enunciate-jersey-rt, should I make the enunciate as main package instead, and provide enunciate-core-rt, enunciate-core, enunciate-jeresy-rt as sub-packages?
The main package changed to enunciate, it provides following sub packages: javadoc core-rt jersey-rt otherwise the spec has updated according to comment #2 and #3 Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate.spec SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-1.31-1.fc24.src.rpm
(In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #4) > Thanks gil, > > Come to think of it, since I also need enunciate-core and > enunciate-jersey-rt, should I make the enunciate as main package instead, > and provide enunciate-core-rt, enunciate-core, enunciate-jeresy-rt as > sub-packages? yes, is ok for me. but is available a new version: https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/releases/tag/v2.5.0 you should add a comment, in the spec file, as to why you want to import this old version maybe you could remove: %mvn_package ":enunciate-parent" enunciate and change or remove the main package in %files -f .mfiles-%{name}-parent %license license.txt notice.txt .... %files core-rt -f .mfiles-%{name}-core-rt %doc README.md %license license.txt notice.txt or %files parent -f .mfiles-%{name}-parent %license license.txt notice.txt ... i dont understand this: # remove enunciate-core-annotations, because it is in other package rm -f %{buildroot}/%{_javadir}/enunciate/enunciate-core-annotations.jar rm -f %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/maven-metadata/enunciate-enunciate-core-annotations.xml rm -f %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/maven-poms/enunciate/enunciate-core-annotations.pom you should disable this module, and use the other package and for last you should add missing build-requires: mvn(com.sun.jersey:jersey-server:1) mvn(com.sun.jersey:jersey-servlet:1) mvn(com.sun.jersey.contribs:jersey-spring:1)
Other question, You asked to enunciate-core-annotations package maintainer to import the missing modules and / or upgrade the package? https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/enunciate-core-annotations
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #7) > Other question, You asked to enunciate-core-annotations package maintainer > to import the missing modules and / or upgrade the package? > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/enunciate-core-annotations Should enunciate-core-annotations agree to merge his package with this package, what is the procedure? Should the enunciate-core-annotations be retired or something else need to be done?
gil, The reasons I do not use the 2.X version are: # https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/issues/117 # https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143213 Patrick, Is it possible for me to merge enunciate-core-annotations into this package? The spec has updated according to comment #6 and #7 Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate.spec SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-1.31-2.fc24.src.rpm
(In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #9) > gil, > > The reasons I do not use the 2.X version are: > # https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/issues/117 > # https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143213 for me is ok this release until upstream bug#117 is not fixed
(In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #8) > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #7) > > Other question, You asked to enunciate-core-annotations package maintainer > > to import the missing modules and / or upgrade the package? > > > > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/enunciate-core-annotations > > Should enunciate-core-annotations agree to merge his package with this > package, what is the procedure? > Should the enunciate-core-annotations be retired or something else need to > be done? maybe this is the better way for more infos see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process
I've added the provides and obsoletes so it should work with dnf. Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate.spec SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-1.31-3.fc24.src.rpm
Created attachment 1176832 [details] spec file changes - remove useless main package - fix jersey version and cglib aId - fix BRs list Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14790219
Created attachment 1176834 [details] enunciate licensececk see enunciate-licensececk.txt this is a list with all source files without license headers you should report the underlying problem to upstream and make sure that in the new version this problem is not present https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #14) > Created attachment 1176834 [details] > enunciate licensececk > > see enunciate-licensececk.txt > this is a list with all source files without license headers > you should report the underlying problem to upstream and > make sure that in the new version this problem is not present > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification Filed as https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/issues/450 However, I don't think the fix will apply to 1.X. Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate.spec SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-1.31-4.fc24.src.rpm
Merge all sub-package in to main, and add Provides and Obsoletes to enunciate-core-annotations Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate.spec SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-1.31-5.fc24.src.rpm
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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 385 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1352091-enunciate/licensecheck.txt NOTE: is enable other module (e.g. enunciate-core) license field must change in: ASL 2.0 and BSD [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. [?]: 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. [-]: 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 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 enunciate-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [!]: 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]: 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: enunciate-1.31-5.fc25.noarch.rpm enunciate-javadoc-1.31-5.fc25.noarch.rpm enunciate-1.31-5.fc25.src.rpm enunciate.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javadoc -> java doc, java-doc, avocado enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Provides: enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes: enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Provides: enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes: enunciate.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javadoc -> java doc, java-doc, avocado enunciate.src: W: tag-in-description C Provides: enunciate.src: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes: enunciate.src: W: tag-in-description C Provides: enunciate.src: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes: 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- enunciate.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javadoc -> java doc, java-doc, avocado enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Provides: enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes: enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Provides: enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes: 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- enunciate-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools enunciate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(com.sun.jersey:jersey-server:1) mvn(com.sun.jersey:jersey-servlet:1) mvn(com.sun.xml.bind:jaxb-impl) mvn(javax.annotation:jsr250-api) mvn(javax.mail:mail) mvn(javax.ws.rs:jsr311-api) mvn(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs) mvn(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-xc) Provides -------- enunciate-javadoc: enunciate-javadoc enunciate: enunciate mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-core-annotations) mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-core-annotations:pom:) mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-core-rt) mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-core-rt:pom:) mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-jersey-rt) mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-jersey-rt:pom:) mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-parent:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/archive/v1.31/enunciate-1.31.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 034aad6d16ac52442afaae80b56d5fc1b0c18686332ee61fbac8bbb12f411668 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 034aad6d16ac52442afaae80b56d5fc1b0c18686332ee61fbac8bbb12f411668 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1352091 --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 Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Issues (non blocking): [!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. Please, change the spec file this way: .... BuildRequires: mvn(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs) BuildRequires: mvn(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-xc) BuildRequires: mvn(org.codehaus.mojo:build-helper-maven-plugin) BuildRequires: mvn(org.easymock:easymock) BuildArch: noarch Provides: %{name}-core-annotations = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: %{name}-core-annotations <= %{old_enunciate_core_annotations_ver} %description %{summary}. %package javadoc Summary: Javadoc for %{name} Provides: %{name}-core-annotations-javadoc = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: %{name}-core-annotations-javadoc <= %{old_enunciate_core_annotations_ver} %description javadoc This package contains the API documentation for %{name}. %prep .... Approved
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/enunciate (Re-review: enunciate-core-annotations)
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/enunciate