Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-primitives.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc16.src.rpm Description: Commons Primitives is a set of collection and utility classes for primitive types. The Java language has a clear distinction between Object and primitive types. A lot of functionality is provided for Object types, including the Java Collection Framework. Relatively little functionality is provided by the JDK for primitives. This package addresses this by providing a set of utility and collection classes for primitives. Fedora Account System Username: gil
*** Bug 823120 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Is there a reason to package some revision instead of 1.0 release ?
yes at the moment dont remember which package require the 1.1 version
I am triaging old review tickets. I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale. Build fails for me: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5467087
sorry, yes i know, need maven-local instead of maven as buildrequires thanks
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-primitives.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc18.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5467399
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-primitives.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc20.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8989778
hi can you wait a moment? ... upload new files
Done
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-primitives.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc20.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9469490
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed NONBLOCKING Issues: ======= - Changelog is incomplete (this is not the initial package from 2012) - Please explain in the SPEC file why a pre-release version is packaged ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata, /usr/share/licenses NOT an issue: owned by javapackages-tools and filesystem [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: Using prebuilt rpms. [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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist [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 [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== 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: apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc23.noarch.rpm apache-commons-primitives-javadoc-1.1-0.1.678495.fc23.noarch.rpm apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc20.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Requires -------- apache-commons-primitives-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils apache-commons-primitives (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils Provides -------- apache-commons-primitives-javadoc: apache-commons-primitives-javadoc apache-commons-primitives: apache-commons-primitives mvn(commons-primitives:commons-primitives) mvn(commons-primitives:commons-primitives:pom:) osgi(org.apache.commons.primitives) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/apache/commons-primitives/archive/ba65d72f2634bae13e0c0157de297c12a7329b16/commons-primitives-ba65d72f2634bae13e0c0157de297c12a7329b16.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 562423f9701a1fb2c47fb4fbcc1d92517f30427b87e0e8cfb753746ed10aae0b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 562423f9701a1fb2c47fb4fbcc1d92517f30427b87e0e8cfb753746ed10aae0b Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n apache-commons-primitives -p -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Some minor comments: As noted above, please mention in the SPEC file why you need to package a pre-release. Also please be more elaborate in the changelog. You've updated the SPEC file two days ago, but the last (and only) entry in the changelog is from 2012. Other than that, the package looks good.
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: apache-commons-primitives Short Description: A set of collection and utility classes for primitive types Upstream URL: http://commons.apache.org/proper/commons-primitives/ Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc22
Please remember to close this ticket once you're done.
apache-commons-primitives-1.1-0.1.678495.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.