Bug 881590 - Review Request: leveldbjni - A Java Native Interface to LevelDB
Summary: Review Request: leveldbjni - A Java Native Interface to LevelDB
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Robert Rati
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: 881589 881608
Blocks: bigdata-review
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2012-11-29 07:27 UTC by gil cattaneo
Modified: 2014-05-06 21:32 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: leveldbjni-1.8-1.fc20
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2014-04-25 18:36:04 UTC
Type: ---
rrati: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description gil cattaneo 2012-11-29 07:27:24 UTC
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldbjni-1.2-1.fc16.src.rpm
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldbjni.spec
LevelDB JNI gives you a Java interface to the
LevelDB C++ library which is a fast key-value
storage library written at Google that provides
an ordered mapping from string keys to string

Fedora Account System Username: gil

Comment 1 gil cattaneo 2012-11-29 07:30:08 UTC
Note: LevelDB C++ library should be patched with
https://github.com/fusesource/leveldbjni/blob/leveldbjni-[LEVELDBJNI VERSION]/leveldb.patch

Comment 5 Robert Rati 2014-04-22 18:19:16 UTC
Please update to latest upstream (1.8)

Comment 6 gil cattaneo 2014-04-22 19:22:57 UTC
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldbjni.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/leveldbjni-1.8-1.fc19.src.rpm

- update to 1.8

Comment 7 Robert Rati 2014-04-24 18:48:13 UTC
Package Review

[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable

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

[x]: Package does not contain kernel modules.
[x]: Package contains no static executables.
[x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la)
[x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs.

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[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
[-]: 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.
[-]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[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.
[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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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
[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
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

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

[-]: 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]: 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.
[-]: 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
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.

Tests are run as part of the build

[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
[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 =====

[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
[x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: leveldbjni-1.8-1.fc21.x86_64.rpm
leveldbjni.x86_64: E: no-binary
leveldbjni.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint leveldbjni-javadoc leveldbjni
leveldbjni.x86_64: E: no-binary
leveldbjni.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

leveldbjni-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

leveldbjni (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://github.com/fusesource/leveldbjni/archive/leveldbjni-1.8.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 14efb27ceeeff61c759ee9322fd16ef5462dc6a321ec19a3abe971eb91a130bd
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 14efb27ceeeff61c759ee9322fd16ef5462dc6a321ec19a3abe971eb91a130bd


Comment 8 gil cattaneo 2014-04-24 18:59:35 UTC
Thanks for the review

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: leveldbjni
Short Description: A Java Native Interface to LevelDB
Owners: gil
Branches: f20
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2014-04-24 19:16:18 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 10 gil cattaneo 2014-04-25 18:36:04 UTC
not able to build on f20, see logs [1] for more information,
xmvn tool not able to resolve dependencies:

[ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project leveldbjni-linux64: Could not resolve dependencies for project org.fusesource.leveldbjni:leveldbjni-linux64:jar:1.8: Cannot access central (http://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact org.fusesource.leveldbjni:leveldbjni:jar:1.8

[1] http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6777121

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2014-04-28 09:42:53 UTC
leveldbjni-1.8-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2014-05-06 21:32:13 UTC
leveldbjni-1.8-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.

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