That new build (test) dependency was requested here: https://github.com/pgjdbc/pgjdbc/pull/664#issuecomment-257113847
Spec URL: https://trepik.fedorapeople.org/classloader-leak-test-framework/v0/classloader-leak-test-framework.spec SRPM URL: https://trepik.fedorapeople.org/classloader-leak-test-framework/v0/classloader-leak-test-framework-1.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: trepik
Stand-alone test framework for detecting and/or verifying the existence or non-existence of Java ClassLoader leaks. It is also possible to test leak prevention mechanisms to confirm that the leak really is avoided. The framework is an built upon JUnit.
APPROVED, thanks! One minor nit, please wrap the long line in %description. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to get additional checks ===== 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: "Unknown or generated". 28 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/praiskup/packages/classloader-leak- test-framework/review/1390063-classloader-leak-test- framework/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/maven-metadata praiskup: filesystem/javapackages tools [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/javadoc, /usr, /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/maven-metadata, /usr/share/java, /usr/share, /usr/share/doc, /usr/share/maven-poms praiskup: I'm not sure what's going on here. OTOH, being that a java package we have less control over file lists ('-f .mfiles' is used). [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. [-]: 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 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 ===== 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in classloader-leak-test-framework-javadoc praiskup: I geuss this is OK, because that's generated dep. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. praiskup: maven automatically runs testsuite [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. praiskup: %maven_install used [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. ===== 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: classloader-leak-test-framework-1.1.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm classloader-leak-test-framework-javadoc-1.1.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm classloader-leak-test-framework-1.1.1-1.fc26.src.rpm classloader-leak-test-framework.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C Stand-alone test framework for detecting and/or verifying the existence or non-existence of Java ClassLoader leaks. It is also possible to test leak prevention mechanisms to confirm that the leak really is avoided. The framework is an built upon JUnit. classloader-leak-test-framework.src: E: description-line-too-long C Stand-alone test framework for detecting and/or verifying the existence or non-existence of Java ClassLoader leaks. It is also possible to test leak prevention mechanisms to confirm that the leak really is avoided. The framework is an built upon JUnit. classloader-leak-test-framework.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{name} classloader-leak-test-framework.src:10: W: macro-in-comment %{version} 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- classloader-leak-test-framework (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(junit:junit) mvn(org.apache.bcel:bcel) classloader-leak-test-framework-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools Provides -------- classloader-leak-test-framework: classloader-leak-test-framework mvn(se.jiderhamn:classloader-leak-test-framework) mvn(se.jiderhamn:classloader-leak-test-framework:pom:) classloader-leak-test-framework-javadoc: classloader-leak-test-framework-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mjiderhamn/classloader-leak-prevention/archive/classloader-leak-test-framework-1.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ba47c6312d49e662d55988eea1ef5686ba0903722cc456fa080973fead45c997 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ba47c6312d49e662d55988eea1ef5686ba0903722cc456fa080973fead45c997 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1390063 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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
missing java checks: [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 praiskup: installed as classloader-leak-test-framework.pom, IIUC [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
Pkgdb says: "Review approved by the person creating the ticket praiskup" Let's hope the check makes sense elsewhere, Tomáš, can you approve?
FTR, another two nice errors: Review not approved by the assignee of the ticket trepik Review not approved by the assignee of the ticket trepik Tomáš, can you please "take" the bug, too?
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/classloader-leak-test-framework
Spec URL: https://trepik.fedorapeople.org/classloader-leak-test-framework/v1/classloader-leak-test-framework.spec SRPM URL: https://trepik.fedorapeople.org/classloader-leak-test-framework/v1/classloader-leak-test-framework-1.1.1-1.fc24.src.rpm Build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16336757
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=815974