Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/shibboleth-java-support.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/shibboleth-java-support-7.1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: Java Support for Shibbleth projects Fedora Account System Username: gil
I can take the review, but you have missing buildrequires. Please fix them, so I can build it in mock.
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1) > I can take the review, but you have missing buildrequires. Please fix them, > so I can build it in mock. maybe https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1356592 ?
I installed that one manually, but there were more missing. For example testng
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #3) > I installed that one manually, but there were more missing. For example > testng Done Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/shibboleth-java-support.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/shibboleth-java-support-7.1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14909734
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues ------ - The license tag should be "ASL 2.0 and BSD" - Typo in summary and description - Shibbleth -> Shibboleth - There is an upstream version 7.2.0 available, can you use that one? ===== 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)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/msimacek/reviews/1356594-shibboleth- java-support/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: 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. [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 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. [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. [?]: 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: [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 shibboleth-java-support-javadoc [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [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. [-]: %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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: shibboleth-java-support-7.1.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm shibboleth-java-support-javadoc-7.1.1-1.fc25.noarch.rpm shibboleth-java-support-7.1.1-1.fc25.src.rpm shibboleth-java-support.src: W: invalid-url Source0: shibboleth-java-support-7.1.1.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- shibboleth-java-support (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(com.google.code.findbugs:jsr305) mvn(com.google.guava:guava) mvn(commons-codec:commons-codec) mvn(joda-time:joda-time) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) shibboleth-java-support-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools Provides -------- shibboleth-java-support: mvn(net.shibboleth.utilities:java-support) mvn(net.shibboleth.utilities:java-support::tests:) mvn(net.shibboleth.utilities:java-support:pom:) shibboleth-java-support shibboleth-java-support-javadoc: shibboleth-java-support-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1356594 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
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #6) > Issues > ------ > - The license tag should be "ASL 2.0 and BSD" Done ("or" operator is for those projects with dual license? if is so this project in under dual license ...) > - Typo in summary and description - Shibbleth -> Shibboleth Done > - There is an upstream version 7.2.0 available, can you use that one? No. for now i will use this release, thanks Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/shibboleth-java-support.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/shibboleth-java-support-7.1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
Looks ok now, APPROVED. Dual licensing means that upstream gives you a choice under which terms you want to use the software. If a package is dual-licensed there is always some notice that explicitly states that you can choose between those licenses. In this package there are files under two different licenses. But you don't have a choice. You must comply with both. Thus it's not dual-licensing. Example of a dual-licensed package is c3p0, take a look at its LICENSE file.
Thanks for the review! create new SCM requests: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6634 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6635
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/shibboleth-java-support
shibboleth-java-support-7.1.1-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d6eed6bdf7
shibboleth-java-support-7.1.1-2.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-d6eed6bdf7
shibboleth-java-support-7.1.1-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.