Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/axion.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/axion-1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Axion is a small, fast, open source relational database system (RDBMS) supporting SQL and JDBC written in and for the Java programming language. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Build fails. Please make package buildable.
(In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #1) > Build fails. Please make package buildable. need to import before apache-commons-primitives rhbz#832803
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/axion.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/axion-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm
Issues ======= It seems that fedora-review is badly confused here for some reason. I'm leaving its comments for reference. - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines It does install properly, when #832803 is installed. - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils They seem to have. - POM files have correct Maven mapping Note: Old style Maven package found, no add_maven_depmap calls found but POM files present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro %mvn_install is used, so things seem fine. - 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. Note: Cannot find LICENSE.txt in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text Bogus. ===== 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/832804-axion/licensecheck.txt Where does ASL 2.0 come from? LICENSE.txt is BSD-3 clause. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. Though, again, I'd suggest co-owning the same LICENSE file by axion and axion-javadoc. [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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 [-]: 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 378880 bytes in 32 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]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in axion- javadoc Not needed. [ ]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint rpmlint says: # rpmlint axion 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # rpmlint axion-javadoc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.7 starting (python version = 2.7.8)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled yum cache Start: cleaning yum metadata Finish: cleaning yum metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.7 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.7 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /var/tmp/832804-axion/results/axion-1.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm /var/tmp/832804-axion/results/axion-javadoc-1.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/ --releasever 23 install /var/tmp/832804-axion/results/axion-1.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm /var/tmp/832804-axion/results/axion-javadoc-1.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: axion-1.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm axion-javadoc-1.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm axion-1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm axion.src: W: invalid-url Source0: axion-1.0-M3-dev-clean-src-cvs20120617.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- axion-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils axion (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(commons-codec:commons-codec) mvn(commons-collections:commons-collections) mvn(commons-logging:commons-logging) mvn(commons-primitives:commons-primitives) mvn(junit:junit) mvn(net.java.dev.javacc:javacc) Provides -------- axion-javadoc: axion-javadoc axion: axion mvn(axion:axion) mvn(axion:axion:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/axion/axion/1.0-M3-dev/axion-1.0-M3-dev.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 22c59265298811f3ba9e437434e3317930557087b5cd9356fea50deeb2298b9b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 22c59265298811f3ba9e437434e3317930557087b5cd9356fea50deeb2298b9b Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 832804 -o--no-clean -o--postinstall 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 Things look kosher, only the license is unclear.
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #4) > Issues > ======= > It seems that fedora-review is badly confused here for some reason. I'm > leaving its comments for reference. > > - Package installs properly. > Note: Installation errors (see attachment) > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines > > It does install properly, when #832803 is installed. > > - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils > > They seem to have. > > - POM files have correct Maven mapping > Note: Old style Maven package found, no add_maven_depmap calls found but > POM > files present > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro > > %mvn_install is used, so things seem fine. > > - 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. > Note: Cannot find LICENSE.txt in rpm(s) > See: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text > > Bogus. > > Things look kosher, only the license is unclear. Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/axion.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/axion-1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm - fix license field
Looks good. Package is APPROVED.
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: axion Short Description: Open Source Java Database Upstream URL: http://axion.tigris.org/ Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/axion.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/axion-1.0-0.2.M3.dev.fc20.src.rpm - fix Release field New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: axion Short Description: Open Source Java Database Upstream URL: http://axion.tigris.org/ Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
axion-1.0-0.2.M3.dev.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/axion-1.0-0.2.M3.dev.fc22
axion-1.0-0.2.M3.dev.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
axion-1.0-0.2.M3.dev.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.