Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldb-java.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldb-java-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: This is a rewrite (port) of LevelDB in Java. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldb-java.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldb-java-0.6-1.fc19.src.rpm
Please update to the latest upstream (0.7). Also, this depends on the iq80 port of snappy, but that project looks incomplete and abandoned. I have a patch to move it to use xerial's snappy wrapper. What do you think about using that instead of packaging the iq80 port of snappy? If the website is to be believed there could be some performance loss, but I'm not sure it's worth maintaining a project that doesn't appear to be developed for the performance gain (if any).
*** Bug 1090146 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldb-java.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldb-java-0.7-1.fc19.src.rpm - update to 0.7
(In reply to Robert Rati from comment #2) > Please update to the latest upstream (0.7). > > Also, this depends on the iq80 port of snappy, but that project looks > incomplete and abandoned. I have a patch to move it to use xerial's snappy > wrapper. What do you think about using that instead of packaging the iq80 > port of snappy? If the website is to be believed there could be some > performance loss, but I'm not sure it's worth maintaining a project that > doesn't appear to be developed for the performance gain (if any). if you want remove org.iq80.snappy:snappy support i haven't no objection, if you want can attach your patch regards
Created attachment 888626 [details] Port to xerial version of snappy
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldb-java.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldb-java-0.7-1.fc19.src.rpm - remove org.iq80.snappy:snappy support
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6767087
Package Review ============== Legend: [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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [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]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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. [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: 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 Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [-]: 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. Tests are skipped due to inconsistency [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: leveldb-java-0.7-1.fc21.noarch.rpm leveldb-java-javadoc-0.7-1.fc21.noarch.rpm leveldb-java-0.7-1.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint leveldb-java-javadoc leveldb-java 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- leveldb-java-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils leveldb-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(com.google.guava:guava) mvn(org.xerial.snappy:snappy-java) Provides -------- leveldb-java-javadoc: leveldb-java-javadoc leveldb-java: leveldb-java mvn(org.iq80.leveldb:leveldb) mvn(org.iq80.leveldb:leveldb-api) mvn(org.iq80.leveldb:leveldb-benchmark) mvn(org.iq80.leveldb:leveldb-project) mvn(org.iq80.leveldb:leveldb-project:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/dain/leveldb/archive/0.7.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ee0b1354b1d2282969b042ec6ff6da5b19748df5280a70004311672a4555efcf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ee0b1354b1d2282969b042ec6ff6da5b19748df5280a70004311672a4555efcf APPROVED
Thanks for the review New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: leveldb-java Short Description: Port of LevelDB to Java Owners: gil Branches: f20 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
leveldb-java-0.7-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/leveldb-java-0.7-1.fc20
leveldb-java-0.7-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
leveldb-java-0.7-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.