Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/glassfish-jsp.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/glassfish-jsp-2.3.4-1.fc31.src.rpm Description: his project provides a container independent implementation of JSP specification %{jspspec}. Fedora Account System Username: mbooth Koji scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39692902 Notes: This is unretirement review for glassfish-jsp. It is quite similar to the "glassfish-jsp-api" package -- they even share the same upstream repo, but the api and impl parts are tagged at different times and have isolated builds, so I don't think it makes sense to combine the SRPMs at this time.
I'll review this package.
There are some small issues. Once those are fixed and/or clarified, the package looks good to go. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Please provide short reasons for the inclusion of both patches in the .spec file (though really, "port to servlet 3.1" is almost descriptive enough already). - Please specify the license breakdown: which parts are CDDL-1.0 / GPLv2 w/ classpath exception, and which are ASL 2.0 - rpmlint complains about a dangling symlink (looks like it's either missing a / in the middle, or something else has gone wrong): /usr/share/java/javax.servlet.jsp/glassfish-jsp-apijavax.servlet.jsp-api.jar ^^ issue here? - [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. In my experience, most Java projects don't include the ASL 2.0 license text ... do you know why? ===== 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. [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [?]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. ===== 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: glassfish-jsp-2.3.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm glassfish-jsp-javadoc-2.3.4-1.fc32.noarch.rpm glassfish-jsp-2.3.4-1.fc32.src.rpm glassfish-jsp.noarch: W: no-documentation glassfish-jsp.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/javax.servlet.jsp/glassfish-jsp-apijavax.servlet.jsp-api.jar /usr/share/java/glassfish-jsp-api/javax.servlet.jsp-api.jar glassfish-jsp.src:28: W: unversioned-explicit-provides jsp%{jspspec} glassfish-jsp.src:29: W: unversioned-explicit-provides javax.servlet.jsp 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- glassfish-jsp.noarch: W: no-documentation glassfish-jsp.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/javax.servlet.jsp/glassfish-jsp-apijavax.servlet.jsp-api.jar /usr/share/java/glassfish-jsp-api/javax.servlet.jsp-api.jar 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 https://github.com/javaee/javaee-jsp-api/archive/javax.servlet.jsp-2.3.4.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3ce0566f3823fb4972eb758da192832ffdbd72106def1926a0026e24e4040546 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ce0566f3823fb4972eb758da192832ffdbd72106def1926a0026e24e4040546 Requires -------- glassfish-jsp (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(javax.servlet.jsp:javax.servlet.jsp-api) mvn(org.glassfish:javax.el) glassfish-jsp-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- glassfish-jsp: glassfish-jsp javax.servlet.jsp jsp jsp2.3 mvn(org.eclipse.jetty.orbit:org.apache.jasper.glassfish) mvn(org.eclipse.jetty.orbit:org.apache.jasper.glassfish:pom:) mvn(org.glassfish.web:javax.servlet.jsp) mvn(org.glassfish.web:javax.servlet.jsp:pom:) osgi(org.glassfish.web.javax.servlet.jsp) glassfish-jsp-javadoc: glassfish-jsp-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.4 (54fa030) last change: 2019-12-07 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1784553 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Java Disabled plugins: R, Ocaml, SugarActivity, Python, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, fonts, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2) > There are some small issues. Once those are fixed and/or clarified, the > package looks good to go. > > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > > [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise > justified. > > Please provide short reasons for the inclusion of both patches in the .spec > file (though really, "port to servlet 3.1" is almost descriptive enough > already). > Comments added. > - Please specify the license breakdown: > > which parts are CDDL-1.0 / GPLv2 w/ classpath exception, > and which are ASL 2.0 > Classes in the org.apache.jasper package are apache licensed. Comment added to the spec file. > - rpmlint complains about a dangling symlink (looks like it's either missing > a > / in the middle, or something else has gone wrong): > > > /usr/share/java/javax.servlet.jsp/glassfish-jsp-apijavax.servlet.jsp-api.jar > ^^ issue here? > Nope this symlink is actually valid and is satisfied by files installed by the generated requirement on the glassfish-jsp-api package. This is a known limitation of rpmlint. > - [?]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > In my experience, most Java projects don't include the ASL 2.0 license > text ... > do you know why? > > Yes, many projects use a maven resources plugin to inject licenses into the jar at build-time to avoid duplication. This is not an upstream mistake, but because of the terms of the Apache license, Fedora requires us to "Include a copy .... as part of the Fedora package in %license" New spec file with added comments: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/glassfish-jsp.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/glassfish-jsp-2.3.4-2.fc31.src.rpm
Ok, thanks, looks good now.
Great, unretirement bug filed: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9113
F31 build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39721198 Rawhide build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=39721205