Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/clojure/leiningen.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/clojure/leiningen-1.7.1-1.fc17.src.rpm Description: Working on Clojure projects with tools designed for Java can be an exercise in frustration. With Leiningen, you describe your build with Clojure. Leiningen handles fetching dependencies, running tests, packaging your projects and can be easily extended with a number of plugins. Fedora Account System Username: salimma
Not ready yet - launcher script is still in progress, and there are some dependencies still missing
maven-artifact from Maven 3 seems to be missing AbstractArtifactMetadata which is needed by either maven-artifact-manager or something else (not sure which, but it's pulled in when invoking 'lein') Filed bug against maven2 (asking for its maven-artifact to be packaged) and blocking this review on that bug report
Spec URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/clojure/leiningen.spec SRPM URL: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/clojure/leiningen-1.7.1-2.fc17.src.rpm Now ready for review; note that you'd need to install the dependencies currently under review yourself (the blocked-by list), and also rebuild maven2 (see the attached patch on #830933) and install the generated maven-settings and maven-artifact RPMs
There is a few issues : %global vendor define the vendor tag by error, and this is forbidden, so i think the easiest fix is to rename it ( https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags ) The test are not run at build time, is there a reason ( like "it need network" ) ? The package is also not installable on f17, so I didn't test it yet, and there is various maven related issue, and for that, i need to read and digest the java /maven policy. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) 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. [x]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: 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 Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. Note: Found : Vendor: technomancy [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. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [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 %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [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, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (technomancy-leiningen-1.7.1-0-g713a4d9.tar.gz) [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. [x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. [-]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present [-]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [-]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present [x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [ ]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ==== Maven ==== [ ]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [!]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [!]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [ ]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [!]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms Issues: [!]: MUST Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [!]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. Note: Found : Vendor: technomancy See: None [!]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro [!]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java [!]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.23 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.23 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.23 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/830784-leiningen/results/leiningen-1.7.1-2.fc17.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-17-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/misc/checkout/git/FedoraReview/830784-leiningen/results/leiningen-1.7.1-2.fc17.noarch.rpm', '--setopt=tsflags=nocontexts'] Erreur : Paquet : leiningen-1.7.1-2.fc17.noarch (/leiningen-1.7.1-2.fc17.noarch) Requiert : maven-artifact Vous pouvez essayer d'utiliser --skip-broken pour contourner le problème Erreur : Paquet : leiningen-1.7.1-2.fc17.noarch (/leiningen-1.7.1-2.fc17.noarch) Requiert : maven-settings Vous pouvez essayer d'exécuter : rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint ------- Checking: leiningen-1.7.1-2.fc17.noarch.rpm leiningen-1.7.1-2.fc17.src.rpm leiningen.noarch: E: devel-dependency java-devel leiningen.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Clojure -> Closure, Cloture, Conjure leiningen.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/bash_completion.d/lein leiningen.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lein leiningen.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Clojure -> Closure, Cloture, Conjure leiningen.src: W: invalid-url Source0: technomancy-leiningen-1.7.1-0-g713a4d9.tar.gz 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- leiningen-1.7.1-2.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash ant classworlds clojure-compat clojure-contrib clucy java-devel jline jpackage-utils lancet maven-ant-tasks maven-artifact maven-error-diagnostics maven-settings rlwrap robert-hooke Provides -------- leiningen-1.7.1-2.fc17.noarch.rpm: leiningen = 1.7.1-2.fc17 mvn(leiningen:leiningen) MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (a5c4ced) last change: 2012-07-22 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 830784 External plugins:
(In reply to comment #4) > There is a few issues : > > %global vendor define the vendor tag by error, and this is forbidden, so i > think the easiest fix is to rename it ( > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags ) > Yup, we've renamed that tag in our other packages to upstream, this one hasn't been touched yet since we were waiting on a fix for the Maven package. Sadly the Maven maintainer has marked that as WONTFIX. > > The test are not run at build time, is there a reason ( like "it need > network" ) ? > > > The package is also not installable on f17, so I didn't test it yet, and > there is various maven related issue, and for that, i need to read and > digest the java /maven policy. > We're most likely switching to packaging Leiningen 2, which does not need Maven. Hang on tight and I'll update this once I have a package to test. Thanks!
OK, apologies for the belated update. Looks like the Maven changes we need are doable, and Leiningen 2 carries a lot of additional dependencies so we'll just postpone that switch. There are test packages for Rawhide here: http://hircus.multics.org/yum-repos/leiningen-rawhide.repo http://hircus.multics.org/yum-repos/leiningen/rawhide/ And the SRPM and spec have been updated: http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/clojure/leiningen.spec http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/clojure/leiningen-1.7.1-3.fc19.src.rpm http://salimma.fedorapeople.org/specs/clojure/leiningen-1.7.1-3.fc19.noarch.rpm They can be rebuilt or installed on the Fedora 18 branch as well, but there is no pre-built Mock profile for F18 yet. On F17, the new Maven changes have not been applied yet so I'll be in touch with the maven2 maintainer to see if he wants to update the F17 maven to match F18/Rawhide, or I would need to rework the Maven2 and Leiningen patches. PS assigning the status to ASSIGNED instead of NEW, since you already set the fedora review flag. Thanks!
Ok after checking the policy and the new spec, the maven/java related stuff from the review are fixed. Let me just build it to see if it work fine on F18.
I cannot build it on f18 , no maven-artifact in mock.
Sorry for the delay! The new maven2 (with maven-artifact and maven-settings) is currently being pushed to stable updates: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2012-12314/maven2-2.2.1-37.fc18 Meanwhile, it's now been added as a buildroot override, so you should be able to build Leiningen in Mock https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/override/edit?build=maven2-2.2.1-37.fc18 (or just download it and manually install it into the mock instance before then building Leiningen -- let me know if you need assistance)
Dependencies have landed; checked that mock -r fedora-18-x86_64 leiningen-1.7.1-3.fc19.src.rpm works Let me know when you can do the review? It'd be great to have this done soon. Thanks!
If it build, then that should be ok.
Super, thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: leiningen Short Description: Clojure project automation tool Owners: salimma Branches: f18 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
leiningen-1.7.1-4.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/leiningen-1.7.1-4.fc18
leiningen-1.7.1-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
leiningen-1.7.1-4.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.