SPEC URL: https://jerboaa.fedorapeople.org/rpm/jolokia-jvm-agent/jolokia-jvm-agent.spec SRPM URL: https://jerboaa.fedorapeople.org/rpm/jolokia-jvm-agent/jolokia-jvm-agent-1.6.2-1.fc30.src.rpm Jolokia is a JMX-HTTP bridge giving an alternative to JSR-160 connectors. It is an agent based approach with support for many platforms. In addition to basic JMX operations it enhances JMX remoting with unique features like bulk requests and fine grained security policies. Fedora Account System Username: jerboaa Rawhide scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=37001731 RPM Lint: $ rpmlint jolokia-jvm-agent.spec 0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint jolokia-jvm-agent-1.6.2-1.fc30.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Created attachment 1603449 [details] Script to smoke test the jolokia jvm agent
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - jolokia-1.6.2/client/javascript/test-app/src/main/javascript/support/jquery.flot.js Has header text: * Released under the MIT license by IOLA, December 2007. Does the SPEC need to list this? - Package contains bundled libraries, see rpmlint Provides section ===== 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. [!]: 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. [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== 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: jolokia-jvm-agent-1.6.2-1.fc32.noarch.rpm jolokia-jvm-agent-1.6.2-1.fc32.src.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/rhuss/jolokia/releases/download/v1.6.2/jolokia-1.6.2-source.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1320d66f053ba3cdc875e3bd61a21e2335292439425d5fe35c377fa8b8a40cbf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1320d66f053ba3cdc875e3bd61a21e2335292439425d5fe35c377fa8b8a40cbf Requires -------- jolokia-jvm-agent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- jolokia-jvm-agent: bundled(com.googlecode.json-simple:json-simple) jolokia-jvm-agent mvn(org.jolokia:jolokia-agent-parent:pom:) mvn(org.jolokia:jolokia-core) mvn(org.jolokia:jolokia-core:pom:) mvn(org.jolokia:jolokia-jvm) mvn(org.jolokia:jolokia-jvm:pom:) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.2 (65d36bb) last change: 2019-04-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1740786 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Java, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Ocaml, PHP, C/C++, R, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Python, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
Thanks for the review! (In reply to Jie Kang from comment #2) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > Issues: > ======= > - Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for > Fedora versions >= 21 > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation Yes. As they are optional I don't intend to add javadocs for this package. > - > jolokia-1.6.2/client/javascript/test-app/src/main/javascript/support/jquery. > flot.js > Has header text: * Released under the MIT license by IOLA, December 2007. > Does the SPEC need to list this? From https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_field: """ The License: field refers to the licenses of the contents of the binary rpm. When in doubt, ask. """ This is a test-only artifact and not part of the binary. Hence, we don't need to add it. > - Package contains bundled libraries, see rpmlint Provides section See https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/#bundling """ Fedora packages SHOULD make every effort to avoid having multiple, separate, upstream projects bundled together in a single package. """ Since this is packaging a java agent the situation is somewhat similar to byteman and others. The prometheus jmx exporter is in a similar boat. In order for an agent to work well and not run into very strange class loading issues it's recommended for Java agents to a) keep the deps light b) rewrite the deps to a special namespace so no conflicts can arise. I.e. simple-json in this case should be shaded and bytecode-rewritten into the org.jolokia namespace (over just including it in the jar). I've linked an upstream issue for b) and have added the bundled() provides for that reason. That's the lesser of the evil in this case. The alternative would be to require simple json be specified on the classpath/modulepath. It would be a divergence from upstream and it is susceptible to run into class loading issues.
Update spec/srpm here: SPEC URL: https://jerboaa.fedorapeople.org/rpm/jolokia-jvm-agent/jolokia-jvm-agent.spec SRPM URL: https://jerboaa.fedorapeople.org/rpm/jolokia-jvm-agent/jolokia-jvm-agent-1.6.2-1.fc32.src.rpm
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jolokia-jvm-agent
Built in rawhide. Closing.