Bug 830125 - Review Request: jbosgi-spi - JBossOSGi SPI
Review Request: jbosgi-spi - JBossOSGi SPI
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Mikolaj Izdebski
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 829329 829402
Blocks: 830677 830750 830763 832439 832446
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2012-06-08 06:00 EDT by Marek Goldmann
Modified: 2012-06-28 03:04 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2012-06-27 23:55:56 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 Marek Goldmann 2012-06-08 06:00:38 EDT
Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-spi/jbosgi-spi.spec
SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/jbosgi-spi/jbosgi-spi-3.0.1-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: This pakcage contains the JBossOSGi SPI.
Fedora Account System Username: goldmann

Note to reviewer: although there is a newer version available, I would like to stick to the 3.0.1.Final, because this is the version required by JBoss AS. It'll be bumped to new version with next AS7 upgrade.
Comment 1 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-06-18 09:34:54 EDT
I am reassigning this bug to myself.
This is quire urgent rewiew so Marek asked me to take.
Comment 2 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-06-18 10:23:24 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.
[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.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: 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 jbosgi-spi-javadoc-3.0.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

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

rpmlint jbosgi-spi-3.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm

jbosgi-spi.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pakcage -> package
jbosgi-spi.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
jbosgi-spi.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jbosgi-spi-3.0.1.Final.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

rpmlint jbosgi-spi-3.0.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

jbosgi-spi.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US pakcage -> package
jbosgi-spi.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/ HTTP Error 403: Forbidden
jbosgi-spi.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

These warnings can be ignored.

[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
Package has no sources or they are generated by developer
[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
[x]: 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.
[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.
[!]: 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
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
     Note: Source0: jbosgi-spi-%{namedversion}.tar.xz (jbosgi-
     spi-%{namedversion}.tar.xz) Patch0: 0001-Remove-osgi.enterprise-
     dependency.patch (0001-Remove-osgi.enterprise-dependency.patch)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: 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

[!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.

This package should require felix-osgi-core because it uses it.
felix-osgi-core is a dependency of jbosgi-vfs, but since jbosgi-spi
uses it directly it should also have a direct requires on it.
Comment 3 Marek Goldmann 2012-06-18 10:33:08 EDT
I incorporated the change, without bumping the release and overriding the previous packages.
Comment 4 Mikolaj Izdebski 2012-06-18 10:41:42 EDT
It's OK now.

Comment 5 Marek Goldmann 2012-06-18 10:42:59 EDT

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: jbosgi-spi
Short Description: JBossOSGi SPI
Owners: goldmann
Branches: f17
Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-06-18 10:57:14 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2012-06-18 13:01:26 EDT
jbosgi-spi-3.0.1-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2012-06-19 20:31:14 EDT
jbosgi-spi-3.0.1-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.
Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-06-27 23:55:56 EDT
jbosgi-spi-3.0.1-1.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.