Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-management-api.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-management-api-3.1.0-0.1.b001.fc16.src.rpm Description: The GlassFish MBean Annotation Library (gmbal, pronounced "Gumball") is a library for using annotations to create Open MBeans. There is similar functionality in JSR 255 for JDK 7, but gmbal only requires JDK 5. Gmbal also supports JSR 77 ObjectNames and the GlassFish Version 3 AMX requirements for MBeans. AS a consequence, gmbal-enabled classes will be fully manageable in GlassFish v3 using the standard GlassFish v3 admin tools, while still being manageable with generic MBean tools when not run under GlassFish v3. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-management-api.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/glassfish-management-api-3.2.0-0.1.b001.fc18.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable ===== 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. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the 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 consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: 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]: 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 [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call [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 DOES 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]: 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]: 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]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Java: [x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: glassfish-management-api-3.2.0-0.1.b001.fc20.noarch.rpm glassfish-management-api-javadoc-3.2.0-0.1.b001.fc20.noarch.rpm glassfish-management-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmbal -> gumball glassfish-management-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gmbal -> Gumball 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint glassfish-management-api-javadoc glassfish-management-api glassfish-management-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US gmbal -> gumball glassfish-management-api.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Gmbal -> Gumball 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- glassfish-management-api-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils glassfish-management-api (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils Provides -------- glassfish-management-api-javadoc: glassfish-management-api-javadoc glassfish-management-api: glassfish-management-api mvn(org.glassfish.external:management-api) osgi(org.glassfish.external.management-api) MD5-sum check ------------- http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/glassfish/external/management-api/3.2.0-b001/management-api-3.2.0-b001-sources.jar : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0b88d454f81733b5c527af37ab13e334d56a614b852445c3a7fe294cf946760a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0b88d454f81733b5c527af37ab13e334d56a614b852445c3a7fe294cf946760a http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/glassfish/external/management-api/3.2.0-b001/management-api-3.2.0-b001.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e531e1a4d0432caef0d799fdf576c208f69d78a16378153c3723133f10bc3863 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e531e1a4d0432caef0d799fdf576c208f69d78a16378153c3723133f10bc3863 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 859110 The package looks good ================ *** APPROVED *** ================
thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: glassfish-management-api Short Description: GlassFish Common APIs Owners: gil Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
glassfish-management-api-3.2.0-0.1.b001.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glassfish-management-api-3.2.0-0.1.b001.fc19
glassfish-management-api-3.2.0-0.1.b001.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/glassfish-management-api-3.2.0-0.1.b001.fc18
glassfish-management-api-3.2.0-0.1.b001.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.
glassfish-management-api-3.2.0-0.1.b001.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
glassfish-management-api-3.2.0-0.1.b001.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.