Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/jakarta-saaj.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/jakarta-saaj-1.4.2-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Jakarta SOAP with Attachments defines an API enabling developers to produce and consume messages conforming to the SOAP 1.1, SOAP 1.2, and SOAP Attachments Feature. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe Note 1: This is a rename-review-request for updating and renaming the outdated and broken geronimo-saaj package. Note 2: For the initial package, version 1.4.2 is targeted while 2.0.0 has been released upstream, because 2.0.0 requires a version of jakarta-activation that has not been released yet (2.0.0). Note 3: I have added compat aliases for the old maven artifact coordinates, and a compat symlink for the old classpath (for jakarta-ws-rs and tomcat, respectively). Please verify that they are correct. Additionally, the following old aliases from geronimo-saaj are no longer needed: - mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-saaj_1.1_spec) - mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-saaj_1.3_spec)
I will take this review.
The issues are not blocking issues, so this package is APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - Version 2.0.0 is the latest version - The missing test classes are in https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/metro-saaj with different package names (but maybe I'm looking at mismatched versions). Would it be worth leaving a note in this spec file that the tests can be enabled if we get metro-saaj packaged for Fedora? ===== 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. The specification is under a different license, but we do not appear to include it in the binary rpm. [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. [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. [-]: 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]: 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 ===== 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. [!]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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. [!]: %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. ===== 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: jakarta-saaj-1.4.2-1.fc34.noarch.rpm jakarta-saaj-1.4.2-1.fc34.src.rpm jakarta-saaj.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided geronimo-saaj-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- jakarta-saaj.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided geronimo-saaj-javadoc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/saaj-api/archive/1.4.2/saaj-api-1.4.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c08d9d960f6f057387baba3f4605d2acc1cf01942f40ee723d480c42fa6f6728 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c08d9d960f6f057387baba3f4605d2acc1cf01942f40ee723d480c42fa6f6728 Requires -------- jakarta-saaj (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(jakarta.activation:jakarta.activation-api) Provides -------- jakarta-saaj: geronimo-saaj jakarta-saaj mvn(jakarta.xml.soap:jakarta.xml.soap-api) mvn(jakarta.xml.soap:jakarta.xml.soap-api:pom:) mvn(javax.xml.soap:saaj-api) mvn(javax.xml.soap:saaj-api:pom:) osgi(jakarta.xml.soap-api) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1871345 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o --no-cleanup-after --no-clean --no-bootstrap-chroot --isolation=simple Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Java, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, Perl, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, Ruby, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2) > The issues are not blocking issues, so this package is APPROVED. Awesome, thanks for the fast review! > Issues: > ======= > - Version 2.0.0 is the latest version > > - The missing test classes are in https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/metro-saaj > with different package names (but maybe I'm looking at mismatched > versions). This is why I noted this in the bug description: > Note 2: For the initial package, version 1.4.2 is targeted while 2.0.0 has been released upstream, because 2.0.0 requires a version of jakarta-activation that has not been released yet (2.0.0). So I'm going to update the involved packages once all dependencies are there. > Would it be worth leaving a note in this spec file that the tests can be > enabled if we get metro-saaj packaged for Fedora? That's good detective work! I'll add a comment that an "saaj-impl" provider is missing for the tests. Thanks!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jakarta-saaj
Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1599021 And for fedora 33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1599022