Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ehcache2.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ehcache2-2.9.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: Ehcache is an open source, standards-based cache that boosts performance, offloads your database, and simplifies scalability. It's the most widely used Java-based cache because it's robust, proven, full-featured, and integrates with other popular libraries and frameworks. Ehcache scales from in-process caching, all the way to mixed in-process/out-of-process deployments with terabyte-sized caches. Fedora Account System Username: gil
The core is under ASL 2.0 license http://svn.terracotta.org/svn/ehcache/tags/ehcache-2.9.0/distribution/src/main/assembly/root/licenses/EHCACHE-CORE-LICENSE.txt the rest use: http://svn.terracotta.org/svn/ehcache/tags/ehcache-2.9.0/distribution/src/main/assembly/root/licenses/EHCACHE-TERRACOTTA-LICENSE.txt
The Terracotta Public License is non-free because of the burdensome attribution requirements in Section 14. Thus, this cannot go into Fedora. Sorry. :(
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #2) > The Terracotta Public License is non-free because of the burdensome > attribution requirements in Section 14. Thus, this cannot go into Fedora. > Sorry. :( No problems thanks for your work! if i remove from the source archive all the sub-modules, under Terracotta Public License, and leave only the ehcache-core module this changes something?
If you remove all code under the Terracotta Public License, then what remains would be Apache 2.0 and fine for inclusion in Fedora.
(In reply to Tom "spot" Callaway from comment #4) > If you remove all code under the Terracotta Public License, then what > remains would be Apache 2.0 and fine for inclusion in Fedora. Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ehcache2.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/ehcache2-2.9.0-1.fc24.src.rpm - remove all non-free/buildable contents
Hmm. Trying to build it failed: No matching package to install: 'mvn(org.terracotta:statistics)' I'll try my luck with the other one ;) -- bug #1363923
Same there -- are there other packages that need reviewing before these can be built?
(In reply to Nils Philippsen from comment #7) > Same there -- are there other packages that need reviewing before these can > be built? I just this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1363921 for now
Still fails… :( ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/dnf builddep --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 26 /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root//builddir/build/SRPMS/ehcache2-2.9.0-1.fc26.src.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:21 ago on Tue Aug 23 17:23:56 2016. No matching package to install: 'mvn(org.terracotta:statistics)' Not all dependencies satisfied Error: Some packages could not be found.
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #9) > Still fails… :( > > ERROR: Command failed: > # /usr/bin/dnf builddep --installroot > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 26 > /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root//builddir/build/SRPMS/ehcache2-2.9. > 0-1.fc26.src.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts > Last metadata expiration check: 0:00:21 ago on Tue Aug 23 17:23:56 2016. > No matching package to install: 'mvn(org.terracotta:statistics)' > Not all dependencies satisfied > Error: Some packages could not be found. available here http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=22958
https://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//packages/terracotta-statistics/1.1.0/2.fc26/noarch/terracotta-statistics-1.1.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm Please, use "--local-repo"
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)", "Unknown or generated". 5 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1364535-ehcache2/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. [-]: 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 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: [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 ehcache2-javadoc , ehcache2-root ---> all packages are noarch'ed [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. ---> checks are run during maven-build [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ehcache2-2.9.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm ehcache2-javadoc-2.9.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm ehcache2-root-2.9.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm ehcache2-2.9.0-1.fc26.src.rpm ehcache2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ehcache -> Eh cache, Eh-cache, Cache ehcache2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability ehcache2-root.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ehcache -> Eh cache, Eh-cache, Cache ehcache2-root.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ehcache -> Eh cache, Eh-cache, Cache ehcache2-root.noarch: W: no-documentation ehcache2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ehcache -> Eh cache, Eh-cache, Cache ehcache2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability ehcache2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ehcache-2.9.0.tar.xz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ehcache2-root.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Ehcache -> Eh cache, Eh-cache, Cache ehcache2-root.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ehcache -> Eh cache, Eh-cache, Cache ehcache2-root.noarch: W: no-documentation ehcache2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Ehcache -> Eh cache, Eh-cache, Cache ehcache2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scalability -> availability, sociability, implacability 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- ehcache2-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools ehcache2-root (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(net.sf.ehcache:ehcache-parent:pom:) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin) ehcache2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) mvn(org.terracotta:statistics) Provides -------- ehcache2-javadoc: ehcache2-javadoc ehcache2-root: ehcache2-root mvn(net.sf.ehcache:ehcache-root:pom:2) mvn(net.sf.ehcache:ehcache-root:pom:2.10) mvn(net.sf.ehcache:ehcache-root:pom:2.9.0) ehcache2: bundled(jsr166e) ehcache2 mvn(net.sf.ehcache.internal:ehcache-core:2) mvn(net.sf.ehcache.internal:ehcache-core:2.10) mvn(net.sf.ehcache.internal:ehcache-core:2.9.0) mvn(net.sf.ehcache.internal:ehcache-core:pom:2) mvn(net.sf.ehcache.internal:ehcache-core:pom:2.10) mvn(net.sf.ehcache.internal:ehcache-core:pom:2.9.0) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/deps/ -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1364535 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 Built with local dependencies: /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/deps/terracotta-statistics-1.1.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm ===== Solution ===== Package approved!!!
Thanks for the review! create new SCM request/s: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7425 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7426
Sorry wrong referencies, for SCM request create new SCM requests: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7427 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7428
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/ehcache2
ehcache2-2.10.2.2.21-1.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-8119dc709d
ehcache2-2.10.2.2.21-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-8119dc709d
ehcache2-2.10.2.2.21-1.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.