Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mkoncek/classpathless-compiler/classpathless-compiler.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mkoncek/classpathless-compiler/classpathless-compiler-1.3-1.fc35.src.rpm Description: Classpathless compiler is a tool intended to be used to recompile java sources from decompiled classes. This tool works differently from the traditional java compiler in that it doesn't use a provided classpath but instead pulls dependencies using an API. (Note: the primary consumer of this library is the package `java-runtime-decompiler`) Fedora Account System Username: mkoncek
Note, 1.3 has just been released.
Then pls update s to non-git hashed, but purely tag-based sources!
Updated.
The summrty is wrong. the "Tool for recompiling decompiled java sources " is misleading, you can compile any code. The usage for compiling freshly compiled fragments is just subset. Please fix in both bug title and spec. eg: Tool for compiling java sources with customizable classes providers If it is wrong also in upstream, thne worthy to fix.
Build fails: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.uCv72Z: line 115: /usr/lib/rpm/brp-python-hardlink: No such file or directory Should be in BR? What is it used for anyway?
.spec and .srpm files updated, upstream summary will have to wait for next release.
(In reply to Marián Konček from comment #6) > ....upstream summary will have to wait for next release sure, ty!
(In reply to Marián Konček from comment #6) > .spec and .srpm files updated, upstream summary will have to wait for next > release. The bug caption is stil bad. HAve to be aligned with spec.
Missing Requires: beust-jcommander ?
Hmm. Rpmbuild passes, but mock in rawhide still fails with the hardlink thing...
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #10) > Hmm. Rpmbuild passes, but mock in rawhide still fails with the hardlink > thing... The fedora review on f34 and mock on manual f35 both pass. Manual mock on rawhide passes too.... Will manage.
(In reply to jiri vanek from comment #9) > Missing Requires: beust-jcommander ? And java-openjdk. Tbh, I'm not sure if you need only java-headless, or whole java-devel.
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 x Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies In the tests, there are classes, as the tool does compilation, and matches compield outputs agasint the examples On long run, I think this should be fixed, adn the tempalte shouldbe done on the fly by pure javac execution, otherwise the tests will nto survive udpate to newer JDK. Reported to usptream - Missing Requires: beust-jcommander ? - Missing Requires on java(c). Tbh, I'm not sure if you need only java-headless, or whole java-devel. ===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 26 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jvanek/review/1977799-classpathless- compiler/licensecheck.txt [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: 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 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 ===== 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. [!]: 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. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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: classpathless-compiler-1.3-1.fc35.noarch.rpm classpathless-compiler-javadoc-1.3-1.fc35.noarch.rpm classpathless-compiler-1.3-1.fc35.src.rpm classpathless-compiler.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US classpath -> class path, class-path, classmate classpathless-compiler.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary cplc classpathless-compiler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US classpath -> class path, class-path, classmate 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/mkoncek/classpathless-compiler/archive/refs/tags/1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a542ff8e44622854dd4d3820ad3b2669224ec3de0c65ec62ee0d0543a1b58fb2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a542ff8e44622854dd4d3820ad3b2669224ec3de0c65ec62ee0d0543a1b58fb2 Requires -------- classpathless-compiler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-11-headless) /usr/bin/bash javapackages-filesystem mvn(com.beust:jcommander) classpathless-compiler-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- classpathless-compiler: classpathless-compiler mvn(io.github.mkoncek:classpathless-compiler) mvn(io.github.mkoncek:classpathless-compiler:pom:) classpathless-compiler-javadoc: classpathless-compiler-javadoc Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./classpathless-compiler-1.3/src/test/resources/io/github/mkoncek/classpathless/impl/NestedHello/Hello.class ./classpathless-compiler-1.3/src/test/resources/io/github/mkoncek/classpathless/impl/NestedHello/Hello$Inner.class ./classpathless-compiler-1.3/src/test/resources/io/github/mkoncek/classpathless/impl/AnonymousHello/Hello.class ./classpathless-compiler-1.3/src/test/resources/io/github/mkoncek/classpathless/impl/AnonymousHello/Hello$1.class ./classpathless-compiler-1.3/src/test/resources/io/github/mkoncek/classpathless/impl/AnonymousHello/Hello$InnerInterface.class ./classpathless-compiler-1.3/src/test/resources/io/github/mkoncek/classpathless/impl/import-default-package/Main.class ./classpathless-compiler-1.3/src/test/resources/io/github/mkoncek/classpathless/impl/import-default-package/Imported.class ./classpathless-compiler-1.3/src/test/resources/io/github/mkoncek/classpathless/impl/SimpleHello/Hello.class Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1977799 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Java, Shell-api Disabled plugins: C/C++, fonts, SugarActivity, R, Haskell, Perl, PHP, Python, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
.spec and .srpm files updated again, added lines: Requires: java-11-openjdk-headless Requires: beust-jcommander Requires: javapackages-tools java-11-openjdk-headless because the package uses openjdk's compiler API beust-jcommander is used by the CLI tool javapackages-tools is needed for %jpackage_script
hi! Yes, gave sense. I would still opt for java-headless. in f33 and upo. To have java-11-openjdk-headless would make sense only inf 32 and down. BY ysing java-headless it will automatically switch to jedk17 in f36 or f37. If it wil break, then it will be time to fix cplc. Are you *sure* you do not require devel??
Updated to: Requires: java-headless I tested the installed package in a mock without java-devel and the CLI tool works.
Thanx. With: Requires: java-headless Requires: beust-jcommander Requires: javapackages-tools it is ok to go!
Repo requests: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35765 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35766 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35767 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35768 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/35769
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/classpathless-compiler
Bodhi Update: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-de7b59ff96
great! Pls, do also updates to stable branches and epels. Can you please make me coadmin?
FEDORA-2021-bc209e6bb7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-bc209e6bb7
FEDORA-2021-86832a887c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-86832a887c
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ae70544a34 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ae70544a34
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7711415458 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7711415458
FEDORA-2021-86832a887c has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-86832a887c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-86832a887c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7711415458 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-7711415458 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-bc209e6bb7 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-bc209e6bb7 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-bc209e6bb7 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ae70544a34 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-ae70544a34 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-e2ae2d06e5 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-e2ae2d06e5` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-e2ae2d06e5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-31aafe39f6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-31aafe39f6 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-30590b552a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-30590b552a` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-30590b552a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2ee5364fa3 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-2ee5364fa3 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-30590b552a has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-e2ae2d06e5 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-097cf54a7e has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-097cf54a7e
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d76288c2d2 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-d76288c2d2
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfa547d2c8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfa547d2c8
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-146416904c has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-146416904c
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-146416904c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-146416904c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfa547d2c8 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-dfa547d2c8 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8e8965c9c0 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8e8965c9c0
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8e8965c9c0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8e8965c9c0 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-146416904c has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-8e8965c9c0 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.