Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/littleproxy.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/littleproxy-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: LittleProxy is a high performance HTTP proxy written in Java and using the Netty networking framework. Fedora Account System Username: gil a gradle (test) BR
Hi Gil, I just post an informative review : The build failed (Compilation failure) see logs in fedora-rawhide : http://dl.dropbox.com/u/96272944/build.log
hi hoops in rawhide netty is 3.5.x littleproxy require netty 3.2.x add a patch for netty 3.5.x support and reupload the pkg thanks for your report! regards
added PATCH0 for resolve this problem
tested on http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4367834
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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 [ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: 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 [ ]: 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 [ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [ ]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: 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. [ ]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 [ ]: 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. [ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* UNKNOWN" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/builder/rpmbuild/littleproxy/licensecheck.txt [ ]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [ ]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [ ]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described. [ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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 architectures. [ ]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. ==== Java ==== [ ]: 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 subpackage [x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [ ]: 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 [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 [ ]: 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 Rpmlint ------- Checking: littleproxy-0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm littleproxy-javadoc-0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm littleproxy-0.4-1.fc18.src.rpm littleproxy.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.littleshoot.org/littleproxy/ <urlopen error [Errno 101] Network is unreachable> littleproxy-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.littleshoot.org/littleproxy/ <urlopen error [Errno 101] Network is unreachable> littleproxy.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.littleshoot.org/littleproxy/ <urlopen error [Errno 101] Network is unreachable> littleproxy.src: W: invalid-url Source0: littleproxy-0.4-src-git.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint littleproxy-javadoc littleproxy-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.littleshoot.org/littleproxy/ <urlopen error [Errno 101] Network is unreachable> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- littleproxy-0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): apache-commons-codec apache-commons-io apache-commons-lang ehcache-core java jpackage-utils log4j netty slf4j littleproxy-javadoc-0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- littleproxy-0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm: littleproxy = 0.4-1.fc18 mvn(org.littleshoot:littleproxy) = 0.4 littleproxy-javadoc-0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm: littleproxy-javadoc = 0.4-1.fc18 MD5-sum check ------------- Build without errors Can you please explain how to test the littleproxy ?
sorry i not understand what you mean with "test the littleproxy" hi
I have install your packages but can you give a way to test littleproxy ?
no sorry i use the library only as build requires for question about usage see here https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/littleproxy
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. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [?]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [-]: 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 [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* UNKNOWN" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /home/builder/rpmbuild/littleproxy/licensecheck.txt [x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [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 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. [?]: 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. [-]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [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 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. [x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [-]: 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 Issues: [?]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. You could add a %check with junit Otherwise all Ok for me. Rpmlint ------- Checking: littleproxy-0.4-1.fc19.src.rpm littleproxy-javadoc-0.4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm littleproxy-0.4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm littleproxy.src: W: invalid-url Source0: littleproxy-0.4-src-git.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint littleproxy littleproxy.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.littleshoot.org/littleproxy/ <urlopen error [Errno 101] Network is unreachable> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- littleproxy-javadoc-0.4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils littleproxy-0.4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): apache-commons-codec apache-commons-io apache-commons-lang ehcache-core java jpackage-utils log4j netty slf4j Provides -------- littleproxy-javadoc-0.4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: littleproxy-javadoc = 0.4-1.fc19 littleproxy-0.4-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: littleproxy = 0.4-1.fc19 mvn(org.littleshoot:littleproxy) = 0.4 MD5-sum check ------------- Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n littleproxy External plugins:
(In reply to comment #9) > Issues: > [?]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. > You could add a %check with junit with maven isnt possible add a %%check section without rebuild littleproxy ... ------------------------------------------------------- T E S T S ------------------------------------------------------- Running org.littleshoot.proxy.HttpRequestUriRuleTest Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.198 sec Running org.littleshoot.proxy.DefaultProxyCacheManagerTest Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1, Time elapsed: 0 sec Running org.littleshoot.proxy.HttpProxyTest Tests run: 1, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 0, Time elapsed: 0.001 sec Results : Tests run: 3, Failures: 0, Errors: 0, Skipped: 1
please changing Assigned To: clicking on (take) and Flags field with + thanks
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: littleproxy Short Description: High Performance HTTP Proxy Owners: gil Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: java-sig
Hi gil Sorry for the confusion, I am not yet an approved packager so this was an informal review for your package
Christophe isn't an approved packager yet and as such cannot approve your package.
ok dont worry, no problems please ignore comment #12
To explain this perhaps a little more clearly. When we have: mvn-rpmbuild package (or install) unit tests are run automatically after compiling classes and *before* creating jar files. So we cannot have jar files without testing really. Therefore it doesn't make much sense to have %check section with maven packages. Perhaps with one exception, but this is not in guidelines yet: if we run "mvn-rpmbuild package" we skip running integration tests. So in that case a %check section with "mvn-rpmbuild verify" makes sense.
ok i have see the Test in build.log sorry it was my fault So for me all is Ok for this informal review Thanks for explanation :)
Since Christophe has already done a good part of the work, I was hoping I could approve this package in one go, but no such luck! The package does not build fo F17 or F16: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4412812 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4412867 Note that it does build on rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4412837 I will do the review against rawhide but F17 will need to be fixed
Ok this look all nice. The only piece missing from Christoph review is the sha1sum: local: bf7bce8fb3d66612b827220e9b2039031fdf1a9a littleproxy-0.4-src-git.tar.xz generate from the git using scriptlet described in the comment: bf7bce8fb3d66612b827220e9b2039031fdf1a9a srpm-unpacked/littleproxy-0.4-src-git.tar.xz So once the build on F17 is fixed I think we're good to go
FTBFS on F17 is caused by too old version of javapackages-tools. F16 has missing a dependency (ehcache-core), but even if it is added similar problem with javapackages-tools will occur.
So Gil can you confirm you do not plan to ask for a F17 branch (which you did in comment #12) ? I'll approve after that :)
hi now it seems fine... Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/littleproxy.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/littleproxy-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm koji build f17 --scratch /home/gil/rpmbuild/SRPMS/littleproxy-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4413068 http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3071/4413071/build.log koji build f18 --scratch /home/gil/rpmbuild/SRPMS/littleproxy-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4413067 http://kojipkgs.fedoraproject.org//work/tasks/3070/4413070/build.log in f17 also there isn't netty 3.5.x if it is not a problem, i'd also use the package in f17. i made changes to the spec file for this purpose thanks
Can you please increase the release of the spec and populate the changelog with the corresponding changes.
done Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/littleproxy/1/littleproxy.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/littleproxy/1/littleproxy-0.4-2.fc16.src.rpm thanks
Ok this looks good so I'm going to approve it. Please next time be a little more extensive on what changed you did to the spec (adapted for F17 by ...). APPROVED
Let's put the flags correctly :-)
Git done (by process-git-requests).
littleproxy-0.4-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/littleproxy-0.4-2.fc18
littleproxy-0.4-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/littleproxy-0.4-2.fc17
littleproxy-0.4-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
littleproxy-0.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.
littleproxy-0.4-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.