Spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jkang/rpms/jmc/raw/ursine/f/jmc.spec SRPM URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jkang/rpms/jmc/raw/ursine/f/jmc-7.1.1-8.fc34.src.rpm Spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jkang/rpms/jmc-core/raw/ursine/f/jmc-core.spec SRPM URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jkang/rpms/jmc-core/raw/ursine/f/jmc-core-7.1.1-5.fc34.src.rpm Spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jkang/rpms/directory-maven-plugin/raw/ursine/f/directory-maven-plugin.spec SRPM URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jkang/rpms/directory-maven-plugin/raw/ursine/f/directory-maven-plugin-0.3.1-2.fc34.src.rpm Spec URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jkang/rpms/owasp-java-encoder/raw/ursine/f/owasp-java-encoder.spec SRPM URL: https://src.fedoraproject.org/fork/jkang/rpms/owasp-java-encoder/raw/ursine/f/owasp-java-encoder-1.2.2-4.fc34.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jkang This is to unretire the master branch for these previously module-only packages for https://pagure.io/fesco/issue/2406 jmc jmc-core directory-maven-plugin owasp-java-encoder Goal is to deliver jmc via ursine packages.
Spec files look sane. Consider using %autosetup in jmc. Running automated checks.
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/churchyard/jmc/builds/
(I wont finish this today, it's very late here, if somebody else beats me to do the review, feel free to do so.)
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #2) > https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/churchyard/jmc/builds/ The jmc package does not build.
The build failure is caused by the ursine javamail package. The jar in the ursine javamail rpm has Import-Package entry javax.activation. There is no ursine provider for this and curiously the spec in ursine removes the dependency [1] That change was made long ago; I suspect it never resulted in an issue because the users (eclipse?) always had javax.activation somewhere for themselves. Though the jmc module has package 'jaf' to provide this, it's more appropriate at this time to use the new 'jakarta-activation' package. Also I believe Fabio is working on a 'mail' package to provide jakarta.mail which would replace this 'javamail' package. The timing here isn't ideal; I'll try to patch ursine javamail and get back to you. Sorry for missing this issue. [1] https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/javamail/blob/master/f/javamail.spec#_62
> Sorry for missing this issue. Don't worry about it. At least I'll have more time to review the rest :)
directory-maven-plugin: - Packages must not depend on deprecated() packages. sonatype-oss-parent is deprecated, directory-maven-plugin must not depend on it. See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/deprecating-packages/ See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/Deprecate_Sonatype_OSS_Parent Note that the package is also orphaned and will be retired from Fedora in ~3 weeks if nobody adapts it. - The javadoc package does not install license file. - There is no %check section. Suggestions: - Replace the version Source0 with the %{version} macro. - Bump the release number so it is higher than the modular version.
owasp-java-encoder: - Also depends on deprecated sonatype-oss-parent. - There is no %check section. Suggestions: - Bump the release number so it is higher than the modular version.
jmc-core: - License field in the package spec doesn't match the actual license. Note: Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License Eclipse Public License 1.0". 1421 files have unknown license. See also the text of packaged LICENSE file, it also contains BSD, not just UPL. - There is no %check section. Suggestions: - Bump the release number so it is higher than the modular version.
Welp. I had a .spec file ready locally, but I forgot to actually open the Review Request for the pending javamail → jakarta-mail update/rename ... Maybe Mat Booth can take a look at the package to see if I made any mistakes regarding maven aliases / classpath symlinks / OSGi manifest contents?
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #8) > - There is no %check section. For these projects what would you expect in the %check section? I believe the unit tests are run during %build and they generally don't provide tests that act on the result. I'll have updated spec and srpms shortly that address the rest, minus javamail.
(In reply to Jie Kang from comment #11) > (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #8) > > - There is no %check section. > > For these projects what would you expect in the %check section? I believe > the unit tests are run during %build and they generally don't provide tests > that act on the result. I don't expect anything in particular, I'd just thought to point that out, since I'm used to packages with %checks (with either unit tests or a smoke test) and packages SHOULD have %check sections. If unit tests run during %build, disregard that comment.
I wonder where is "UPL or BSD-3" coming from, should it be "UPL and BSD" instead?
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #13) > I wonder where is "UPL or BSD-3" coming from, should it be "UPL and BSD" > instead? The README.md for jmc sources has: "The Mission Control source code is made available under the Universal Permissive License (UPL), Version 1.0 or a BSD-style license, alternatively. The full open source license text is available at license/LICENSE.txt in the JMC project." And generally I was following dual licence scenario in: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios
directory-maven-plugin is APPROVED: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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", "Apache License 2.0". 2 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: directory-maven-plugin-0.3.1-2.fc34.noarch.rpm directory-maven-plugin-javadoc-0.3.1-2.fc34.noarch.rpm directory-maven-plugin-0.3.1-2.fc34.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jdcasey/directory-maven-plugin/archive/directory-maven-plugin-0.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : af4cbb245ecb01cb6e251deb9ab6b1683b992c529aa58a136d1fcfbf11669b93 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : af4cbb245ecb01cb6e251deb9ab6b1683b992c529aa58a136d1fcfbf11669b93 Requires -------- directory-maven-plugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-core) mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-model) mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-plugin-api) directory-maven-plugin-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- directory-maven-plugin: directory-maven-plugin mvn(org.commonjava.maven.plugins:directory-maven-plugin) mvn(org.commonjava.maven.plugins:directory-maven-plugin:pom:) directory-maven-plugin-javadoc: directory-maven-plugin-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17 Command line :try-fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --mock-options=--enablerepo=local --copr https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/churchyard/jmc/build/1680301/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Java, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, PHP, C/C++, Ocaml, SugarActivity, R, fonts, Python, Perl, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Jie Kang from comment #14) > (In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #13) > > I wonder where is "UPL or BSD-3" coming from, should it be "UPL and BSD" > > instead? > > The README.md for jmc sources has: "The Mission Control source code is made > available under the Universal Permissive License (UPL), Version 1.0 or a > BSD-style license, alternatively. The full open source license text is > available at license/LICENSE.txt in the JMC project." > > And generally I was following dual licence scenario in: > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios In that case I strongly suggest to explain the situation in a comment. Also, the license identifier is BSD, not BSD-3. BTW That link is outdated, please use https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_dual_licensing_scenarios
owasp-java-encoder is APPROVED Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 15 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [?]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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]: 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: owasp-java-encoder-1.2.2-4.fc34.noarch.rpm owasp-java-encoder-javadoc-1.2.2-4.fc34.noarch.rpm owasp-java-encoder-1.2.2-4.fc34.src.rpm owasp-java-encoder.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.2.-4 ['1.2.2-4.fc34', '1.2.2-4'] 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- owasp-java-encoder.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.2.-4 ['1.2.2-4.fc34', '1.2.2-4'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/OWASP/owasp-java-encoder/archive/v1.2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d15e02a423db114bcf1a63480d09a2407fe6c947fc7eecdf18c469107769659a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d15e02a423db114bcf1a63480d09a2407fe6c947fc7eecdf18c469107769659a Requires -------- owasp-java-encoder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem owasp-java-encoder-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- owasp-java-encoder: mvn(org.owasp.encoder:encoder) mvn(org.owasp.encoder:encoder-parent:pom:) mvn(org.owasp.encoder:encoder:pom:) osgi(org.owasp.encoder) owasp-java-encoder owasp-java-encoder-javadoc: owasp-java-encoder-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17 Command line :try-fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 --mock-options=--enablerepo=local --copr https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/churchyard/jmc/build/1680302/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Java, Shell-api Disabled plugins: R, Perl, Haskell, SugarActivity, Ruby, PHP, fonts, Python, C/C++, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #17) > owasp-java-encoder is APPROVED But please fix the changelog entry: > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: owasp-java-encoder-1.2.2-4.fc34.noarch.rpm > owasp-java-encoder-javadoc-1.2.2-4.fc34.noarch.rpm > owasp-java-encoder-1.2.2-4.fc34.src.rpm > owasp-java-encoder.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.2.-4 > ['1.2.2-4.fc34', '1.2.2-4'] > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > owasp-java-encoder.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.2.-4 > ['1.2.2-4.fc34', '1.2.2-4'] > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
I updated jmc and jmc-core license and added a comment. I've made sure owasp-java-encoder spec has a correct changelog entry. I also did a test build of jmc on top of jakarta-mail [1] here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jkang/blob/builds/ [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1880735
jmc-core is APPROVED: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License Eclipse Public License 1.0". [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 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: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [-]: 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. [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: jmc-core-7.1.1-4.fc34.noarch.rpm jmc-core-javadoc-7.1.1-4.fc34.noarch.rpm jmc-core-7.1.1-4.fc34.src.rpm jmc-core.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core.src: W: invalid-license UPL 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- jmc-core-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL jmc-core.noarch: W: invalid-license UPL 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://hg.openjdk.java.net/jmc/jmc7/archive/63ec7d0ee8d9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : bfc1305e562bb320137cdc066abbf1e80671e6484140eecc10cdc34738713fcb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bfc1305e562bb320137cdc066abbf1e80671e6484140eecc10cdc34738713fcb Requires -------- jmc-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(org.owasp.encoder:encoder) osgi(org.junit) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.common) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder) osgi(org.owasp.encoder) jmc-core-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- jmc-core: jmc-core mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common.test) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common.test:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:common:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.jdk) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules.jdk:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder.rules:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:flightrecorder:pom:) mvn(org.openjdk.jmc:missioncontrol.core:pom:) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.common) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.common.test) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules) osgi(org.openjdk.jmc.flightrecorder.rules.jdk) jmc-core-javadoc: jmc-core-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.0 (fed5495) last change: 2019-03-17 Command line :try-fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-jmc --mock-options=--enablerepo=local --copr https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/churchyard/jmc/build/1676830/ Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-jmc Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, Ocaml, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, R, C/C++, Ruby, fonts Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
jmc comments: If a package contains a GUI application, then it SHOULD install a .appdata.xml file into %{_metainfodir}. macros in comments: jmc.src:182: W: macro-in-comment %{_os} jmc.src:182: W: macro-in-comment %{eclipse_arch} Possibly unstripped executable? jmc.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jmc/jmc Broken symbolic link: # ls -l /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/com.sun.mail.jakarta.mail_1.6.5.jar lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 41 Sep 22 10:41 /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/com.sun.mail.jakarta.mail_1.6.5.jar -> /usr/share/java/javamail/jakarta.mail.jar # ls -l /usr/share/java/javamail/jakarta.mail.jar ls: cannot access '/usr/share/java/javamail/jakarta.mail.jar': No such file or directory Also some files, I don't know where they come from, seem to be packaged with different license: # rpm -ql jmc | grep about_files /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612-0706/about_files /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612-0706/about_files/IJG_README /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612-0706/about_files/lgpl-v21.txt /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612-0706/about_files/mpl-v11.txt /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612-0706/about_files/mpl-v20.txt /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612-0706/about_files/webkit-bsd.txt I don't see the files in sources, are they copied from the buildroot?
(In reply to Miro Hrončok from comment #21) > jmc comments: I've updated the jmc spec and rpm, links are unchanged. Replied to comments in-line below. > > > If a package contains a GUI application, then it SHOULD install a > .appdata.xml file into %{_metainfodir}. Added. > > > macros in comments: > > jmc.src:182: W: macro-in-comment %{_os} > jmc.src:182: W: macro-in-comment %{eclipse_arch} Checked; the comments make sense. > > > Possibly unstripped executable? > > jmc.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/jmc/jmc I looked at [1] and am not entirely sure what the expected action is for this warning. Is there an updated document? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#unstripped-binary-or-object > > > > Broken symbolic link: > > # ls -l /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/com.sun.mail.jakarta.mail_1.6.5.jar > lrwxrwxrwx. 1 root root 41 Sep 22 10:41 > /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/com.sun.mail.jakarta.mail_1.6.5.jar -> > /usr/share/java/javamail/jakarta.mail.jar > # ls -l /usr/share/java/javamail/jakarta.mail.jar > ls: cannot access '/usr/share/java/javamail/jakarta.mail.jar': No such file > or directory I've changed jmc to use javamail 1.5.2 which is currently in Fedora. jakarta-mail should be backwards compatible to some extent, so will be cleaning or fixing jmc spec when that is available. > > > > Also some files, I don't know where they come from, seem to be packaged with > different license: > > # rpm -ql jmc | grep about_files > /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612- > 0706/about_files > /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612- > 0706/about_files/IJG_README > /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612- > 0706/about_files/lgpl-v21.txt > /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612- > 0706/about_files/mpl-v11.txt > /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612- > 0706/about_files/mpl-v20.txt > /usr/lib/jmc/plugins/org.eclipse.swt.gtk.linux.x86_64_3.114.100.v20200612- > 0706/about_files/webkit-bsd.txt > > I don't see the files in sources, are they copied from the buildroot? JMC is an Eclipse RCP application so it's underlying platform is the Eclipse platform, the same as the Eclipse IDE. This is part of that Eclipse platform. For licensing, JMC has a THIRDPARTYREADME that lists direct dependencies like Eclipse, but it doesn't do transitives from there.
Oh also the copr build for this jmc is here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/jkang/jmc7/builds/ I'll be setting up a rawhide vm to test the rpms later this afternoon.
Hey Miro, have you been able to take a look at the latest for jmc?
I thought this is blocked on something, but I cannot remember on what. I can certainly look again.
Ah, no worries! I think it may have been the javamail -> jakarta mail update. However I've made use of the existing javamail currently in Fedora instead so it won't be blocked by that update + name change.
I was able to push the javamail 1.5.2 -> jakarta-mail 1.6.5 update today. So you could use the new version on rawhide.
I've updated the jmc srpm to use jakarta-mail now that it is in rawhide.
Thanks. I'll look at them ASAP.
My concerns have been fixed, all packages here are APPROVED. Sorry fo the delay.
Thank you Miro! Your review of the packages here are greatly appreciated!