Bug 821356 - Review Request: papaki - A Java annotation scanner and repository
Review Request: papaki - A Java annotation scanner and repository
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
unspecified Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Mikolaj Izdebski
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2012-05-14 04:43 EDT by Lin Gao
Modified: 2012-06-30 04:32 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2012-06-30 04:32:36 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
mizdebsk: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Lin Gao 2012-05-14 04:43:02 EDT
Spec URL: http://fedorapkgs-gaolin.rhcloud.com/papaki.spec
SRPM URL: http://fedorapkgs-gaolin.rhcloud.com/papaki-1.0.0-0.1.Beta3.fc16.src.rpm
Description: An annotation scanner and repository.

It needs sponsor.
Comment 1 Marek Goldmann 2012-05-14 05:00:12 EDT
This was submitted previously as bug 801947. Please contact Ricardo to see who should own this package.
Comment 2 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-05-29 06:52:12 EDT
I'll take this review.

I'm also removing block on FE-NEEDSPONSOR because as Marek told me Lin was already sponsored by him.
Comment 3 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-05-29 07:48:52 EDT
Package Review

- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.

papaki requires javassist during runtime, but javassist is not listed
in requirements.

papaki references the following classes from javassist:

[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5

Build root is being removed in %install section. This is not required
in any of currently suipported releases of Fedora. Please remove the
following line from the spec file:
  %{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT

[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint papaki-1.0.0-0.1.Beta3.fc18.noarch.rpm

papaki.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/papaki HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
papaki.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/papaki/papaki-core.jar
papaki.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/papaki/papaki-indexer.jar
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

The URL is invalid. It results in HTTP 404.

Classpath are present in manifest files. Please refer to
for instructions how to remove classpaths from manifests.

rpmlint papaki-javadoc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta3.fc18.noarch.rpm

papaki-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
papaki-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/papaki HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

The URL is invalid. It results in HTTP 404.

The spelling-error warning can be ignored.

rpmlint papaki-1.0.0-0.1.Beta3.fc18.src.rpm

papaki.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/papaki HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
papaki.src: W: invalid-url Source0: papaki-1.0.0.Beta3.tar.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/kojan/review/821356/papaki-indexer-1.0.0.Beta3.pom :
  MD5SUM this package     : 6e0308e5ac4b5855b0a79669ac8c141b
  MD5SUM upstream package : 6e0308e5ac4b5855b0a79669ac8c141b
/home/kojan/review/821356/papaki-core-1.0.0.Beta3.pom :
  MD5SUM this package     : e76f4800fcfd888d7d776158ecead192
  MD5SUM upstream package : e76f4800fcfd888d7d776158ecead192

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a
     separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to
     include it.

Upstream package doesn't contain license file. You SHOUL query upstream to
include the linecse text.

[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
[!]: SHOULD Package functions as described.

The package description is very short and vague. Please provide more details
about the package in the description. (At least add the text from README.txt

[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.

==== Java ====
[x]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
     removed prior to building
[x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
[x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
[x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)

==== Maven ====
[x]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
     Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
     jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps)
     even when building with ant
[x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

==== Summary ====

 1) remove "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" line,
 2) copy more datails from README.txt into %description,
 3) remove classpaths from manifests,
 4) provide correct URL,
 5) add javassist to Requires.
Comment 5 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-05-29 09:45:24 EDT
The Spec URL doesn't work for me.
I can check it again later, but if you want faster review, consider reuploading it somewhere else.

$ curl http://fedorapkgs-gaolin.rhcloud.com/papaki.spec
<title>503 Service Temporarily Unavailable</title>
<h1>Service Temporarily Unavailable</h1>
<p>The server is temporarily unable to service your
request due to maintenance downtime or capacity
problems. Please try again later.</p>
<address>Apache/2.2.15 (Red Hat) Server at fedorapkgs-gaolin.rhcloud.com Port 80</address>
Comment 6 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-05-29 09:57:44 EDT
Everything is OK now.

Tested on Koji:

Comment 7 Lin Gao 2012-05-29 10:00:40 EDT
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: papaki
Short Description: A Java annotation scanner and repository
Owners: lgao
Branches: f17
InitialCC: mizdebsk
Comment 8 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-05-29 10:02:53 EDT
Mikolaj, please set review flag to +, and then Lin can re-set the cvs flag
to ?.  Thanks!
Comment 9 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-05-29 10:06:00 EDT
Done. (Lin, you did everything OK, it's a bug in Bugzilla itself.)
Comment 10 Lin Gao 2012-05-29 22:58:43 EDT
OK, update cvs flag to '?'.
Comment 11 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-05-30 07:54:38 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2012-05-30 20:23:07 EDT
papaki-1.0.0-0.1.Beta3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2012-06-01 12:53:16 EDT
papaki-1.0.0-0.1.Beta3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2012-06-30 04:32:36 EDT
papaki-1.0.0-0.1.Beta3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.