Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 866239
Review Request: gemini-blueprint - Reference Implementation of the OSGi Blueprint Service
Last modified: 2013-05-02 22:02:42 EDT
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gemini-blueprint.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Eclipse Gemini Blueprint project makes it easy to build Java applications that run in an OSGi framework. By using Gemini Blueprint, applications benefit from using a better separation of modules, the ability to dynamically add, remove, and update modules in a running system, the ability to deploy multiple versions of a module simultaneously (and have clients automatically bind to the appropriate one), and a dynamic service model. NOTE: Eclipse Gemini Blueprint can be considered the successor of Spring DM (OSGi) 2.x (http://www.springsource.org/osgi). Fedora Account System Username: gil tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4589338
The summary is misleading. Looking at bug title only I thought that this package was yet another OSGi framework (like Equinox or Felix)
hi Mikolaj, sound better as "Reference Implementation of the OSGi Blueprint Service"? thanks
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gemini-blueprint.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-1.fc16.src.rpm - changed summary
Why not use https://github.com/glyn/Gemini-Blueprint/archive/gemini-blueprint-1.0.0.RELEASE.tar.gz for Source0?
(In reply to comment #4) > Why not use > https://github.com/glyn/Gemini-Blueprint/archive/gemini-blueprint-1.0.0. > RELEASE.tar.gz for Source0? hi because it is an older version...
Indeed - I am blind. Failing to build in mock: + mvn-rpmbuild -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8 -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true install javadoc:aggregate /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.o6CdLT: line 30: mvn-rpmbuild: command not found
yes sorry forgot to replace maven with maven-local Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gemini-blueprint.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-1.fc18.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed == Issues == - Need some clarification on the two licenses in the spec. Also, there is one BSD file - test-support/src/main/java/org/eclipse/gemini/blueprint/test/internal/util/DependencyVisitor.java, though I suspect that isn't shipped. ===== 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. [-]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2/866239-gemini- blueprint/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [!]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 51200 bytes in 7 files. [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: No rpmlint messages. 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) Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [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: [-]: 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). [?]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm gemini-blueprint-javadoc-1.0.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint gemini-blueprint gemini-blueprint-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./gemini-blueprint-1.0.2.RELEASE/integration-tests/tests/src/test/resources/expanded-bundle.jar - False positive - this is a directory Requires -------- gemini-blueprint (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): aopalliance felix-osgi-compendium felix-osgi-core java jpackage-utils log4j slf4j springframework springframework-aop springframework-beans springframework-context springframework-context-support gemini-blueprint-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- gemini-blueprint: gemini-blueprint mvn(org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint:gemini-blueprint) mvn(org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint:gemini-blueprint-core) mvn(org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint:gemini-blueprint-extender) mvn(org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint:gemini-blueprint-io) mvn(org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint:gemini-blueprint-mock) osgi(org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint.core) osgi(org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint.extender) osgi(org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint.io) osgi(org.eclipse.gemini.blueprint.mock) gemini-blueprint-javadoc: gemini-blueprint-javadoc MD5-sum check ------------- Using local file /export/home/orion/redhat/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2.RELEASE-src-git.tar.xz as upstream file:///export/home/orion/redhat/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2.RELEASE-src-git.tar.xz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1b3c6ec64e267865de901172c72fbf13d5d90008b0912ab267873d28286d218 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9f0a29029c9a728d59649473104f9482cf05c3bb5538488df81ae2e0a5b835f0 However, diff -r shows no differences Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 866239
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gemini-blueprint.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-2.fc18.src.rpm - fix License field
Great. Approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: gemini-blueprint Short Description: Reference Implementation of the OSGi Blueprint Service Owners: gil Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-2.fc19
gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-2.fc18
gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
gemini-blueprint-1.0.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.