Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/sisu-guice/sisu-guice-3.1.2-1.fc19.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/sisu-guice/sisu-guice-3.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Description: Put simply, Guice alleviates the need for factories and the use of new in your Java code. Think of Guice's @Inject as the new new. You will still need to write factories in some cases, but your code will not depend directly on them. Your code will be easier to change, unit test and reuse in other contexts. Guice embraces Java's type safe nature, especially when it comes to features introduced in Java 5 such as generics and annotations. You might think of Guice as filling in missing features for core Java. Ideally, the language itself would provide most of the same features, but until such a language comes along, we have Guice. Guice helps you design better APIs, and the Guice API itself sets a good example. Guice is not a kitchen sink. We justify each feature with at least three use cases. When in doubt, we leave it out. We build general functionality which enables you to extend Guice rather than adding every feature to the core framework. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk NOTE: This is a re-review request for a package rename, the name of the package being replaced is google-guice. The owner of google-guice package agrees with the rename.
I am taking this review.
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [x] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package -n guice-parent See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage [!]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: sisu-guice-3.1.2-1.fc19.spec should be sisu-guice.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name ===== 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 successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [-]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package javadoc, %package -n guice-parent [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/863445-sisu- guice-3.1.2-1.fc19/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [-]: 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]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [!]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: sisu-guice-3.1.2-1.fc19.spec should be sisu-guice.spec [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. Java: [x]: If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package -n guice-parent [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) Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [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]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [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. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (sisu-guice-3.1.2.tar.gz) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: sisu-guice-3.1.2-1.fc19.src.rpm sisu-guice-javadoc-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm sisu-guice-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm sisu-guice.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency cglib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint sisu-guice sisu-guice-javadoc sisu-guice.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency cglib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- sisu-guice-javadoc-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils sisu-guice-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): aopalliance atinject cglib guava java jpackage-utils slf4j Provides -------- sisu-guice-javadoc-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: google-guice-javadoc = 3.1.2-1.fc19 sisu-guice-javadoc = 3.1.2-1.fc19 sisu-guice-3.1.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: google-guice = 3.1.2-1.fc19 mvn(org.sonatype.sisu:sisu-guice) = 3.1.2 osgi(org.sonatype.sisu.guice) = 3.1.2 sisu-guice = 3.1.2-1.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- https://github.com/sonatype/sisu-guice/tarball/sisu-guice-3.1.2#/sisu-guice-3.1.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8fe9fbe7fefac20dea9fb5be607b80efba231537750319f4cff2cd4ed0541ad2 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8fe9fbe7fefac20dea9fb5be607b80efba231537750319f4cff2cd4ed0541ad2
Hi Mikolaj, Issues: ======= [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package -n guice-parent See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage [!]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. Note: sisu-guice-3.1.2-1.fc19.spec should be sisu-guice.spec See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Spec_file_name if the second issue isn't a problem the package is approved thanks
Hi Mikolaj, for backwards compatibility you can add to depmap %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-assistedinject.pom %{name}/guice-assistedinject.jar -f assistedinject -a "com.google.inject.extensions:guice-assistedinject" %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-extensions.pom -f extensions %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-grapher.pom %{name}/guice-grapher.jar -f grapher -a "com.google.inject.extensions:guice-grapher" %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-jmx.pom %{name}/guice-jmx.jar -f jmx -a "com.google.inject.extensions:guice-jmx" %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-jndi.pom %{name}/guice-jndi.jar -f jndi -a "com.google.inject.extensions:guice-jndi" %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-multibindings.pom %{name}/guice-multibindings.jar -f multibindings -a "com.google.inject.extensions:guice-multibindings" %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-parent.pom -f parent %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-persist.pom %{name}/guice-persist.jar -f persist -a "com.google.inject.extensions:guice-persist" %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-servlet.pom %{name}/guice-servlet.jar -f servlet -a "com.google.inject.extensions:guice-servlet" %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-spring.pom %{name}/guice-spring.jar -f spring -a "com.google.inject.extensions:guice-spring" %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-guice-throwingproviders.pom %{name}/guice-throwingproviders.jar -f throwingproviders -a "com.google.inject.extensions:guice-throwingproviders" %add_maven_depmap JPP.%{name}-%{name}.pom %{name}/%{name}.jar -a "com.google.inject:guice" thanks regaeds
This package was just pushed to rawhide, except that I kept the old name (google-guice). This means that a formal review wasn't needed after all, but thank you for it anyways!