Bug 877661 - Review Request: seam-conversation - Conversation management logic
Summary: Review Request: seam-conversation - Conversation management logic
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2012-11-17 17:57 UTC by gil cattaneo
Modified: 2013-01-11 23:15 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2012-12-29 06:30:00 UTC
gerard: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description gil cattaneo 2012-11-17 17:57:09 UTC
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/seam-conversation.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/seam-conversation-3.1.0-1.fc16.src.rpm
This is where different CDI impls should abstract its 
conversation management logic until that is part of the CDI spec.

Fedora Account System Username: gil

Comment 1 gil cattaneo 2012-11-17 18:17:05 UTC
tested on: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4698491

Comment 2 Gerard Ryan 2012-12-19 16:12:57 UTC
I'll review this.

Comment 3 Gerard Ryan 2012-12-19 16:46:30 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[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
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/grdryn/dev/fedora/review/877661-seam-
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
[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
[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]: 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.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[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
[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

[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 uses '-Dmaven.local.depmap' explain why it was needed in a
[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]: If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== SHOULD items =====

[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
[?]: 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
[-]: 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.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[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
[-]: %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.

[x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)

===== EXTRA items =====

[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.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is

Checking: seam-conversation-3.1.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
seam-conversation.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US impls -> imps, impels, limps
seam-conversation.src: W: invalid-url Source0: seam-conversation-3.1.0.Final.tar.xz
seam-conversation.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tomcat-lib
seam-conversation.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US impls -> imps, impels, limps
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint seam-conversation-javadoc seam-conversation
seam-conversation.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency tomcat-lib
seam-conversation.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US impls -> imps, impels, limps
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

seam-conversation-javadoc-3.1.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

seam-conversation-3.1.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

    seam-conversation-javadoc = 3.1.0-1.fc19

    mvn(org.jboss.seam.conversation:seam-conversation) = 3.1.0.Final
    mvn(org.jboss.seam.conversation:seam-conversation-spi) = 3.1.0.Final
    mvn(org.jboss.seam.conversation:seam-conversation-weld) = 3.1.0.Final
    seam-conversation = 3.1.0-1.fc19

MD5-sum check

Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 877661 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64

This all looks fine. ACCEPTED.

Comment 4 gil cattaneo 2012-12-19 17:39:31 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: seam-conversation
Short Description: Conversation management logic
Owners: gil
Branches: f17 f18
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-12-19 17:59:52 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2012-12-20 10:17:46 UTC
seam-conversation-3.1.0-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2012-12-20 11:00:51 UTC
seam-conversation-3.1.0-1.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2012-12-21 01:33:29 UTC
seam-conversation-3.1.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-12-29 06:30:03 UTC
seam-conversation-3.1.0-1.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2013-01-11 23:15:29 UTC
seam-conversation-3.1.0-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.