Bug 883413 - Review Request: java-dirq - Directory based queue
Summary: Review Request: java-dirq - Directory based queue
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Adrien Devresse
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2012-12-04 14:39 UTC by Massimo Paladin
Modified: 2013-07-04 11:14 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-06-17 14:11:37 UTC
Type: ---
adev88: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Massimo Paladin 2012-12-04 14:39:08 UTC
Spec URL: http://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/java-dirq/java-dirq.spec
SRPM URL: http://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/java-dirq/java-dirq-1.0-1.fc17.src.rpm
Description: The goal of this module is to offer a simple queue system using the
underlying file system for storage, security and to prevent race
conditions via atomic operations. It focuses on simplicity, robustness
and scalability.

This module allows multiple concurrent readers and writers to interact
with the same queue.

A port of Perl module Directory::Queue and a Python dirq implementation
of the same algorithm are available so readers and writers can be written
in different programming languages.
Fedora Account System Username: mpaladin

Comment 1 Massimo Paladin 2013-05-13 15:08:48 UTC
Updated to newer version:
Spec URL: http://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/java-dirq/java-dirq.spec
SRPM URL: http://mpaladin.web.cern.ch/mpaladin/rpms/java-dirq/java-dirq-1.3-1.fc18.src.rpm

Building fine in koji for f17,f18,f19,f20,el5 and el6.

Comment 2 Adrien Devresse 2013-05-24 12:40:42 UTC
I take care of this review

Comment 3 Adrien Devresse 2013-05-24 13:27:59 UTC
just two minor comments before the formal review :

- the directory ownership of %{_javadocdir}/%{srcname} is not set with %dir

- It's usually clearer to use one style of the macro ( $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} ) but not both if possible.


Comment 4 Massimo Paladin 2013-05-24 14:42:38 UTC
Hi Adrien,

thank you for the review.

About the first point do you mean to change:
%dir %{_javadocdir}/%{srcname}

About the second point do you mean to change $RPM_BUILD_ROOT to %{buildroot} to have macros al with %{} notation?

Comment 5 Adrien Devresse 2013-05-24 14:45:18 UTC
Yes these are the point, they are minor. I don't see anything else at the first iteration.

Comment 7 Adrien Devresse 2013-05-28 11:30:09 UTC
Hi Massimo,

The new SRPM does not build on EL5 :


Probably because the SRPM has been produced on a plateform > EL5 and without rpmbuild-md5.


Comment 8 Massimo Paladin 2013-05-29 06:57:50 UTC
Hi Adrien,

yes, here is with the -md5 src rpm:

I put it here if you want to check it:


Comment 9 Adrien Devresse 2013-05-29 14:36:55 UTC
My formal review : 

OK: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.

rpmlint  /var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/result/*.rpm
java-dirq.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.3-2 ['1.3-2.el5.centos', '1.3-2.centos']
java-dirq.src:85: E: files-attr-not-set
java-dirq.src:86: E: files-attr-not-set

		-> you should normally put "%defattr(-,root,root)" to the java doc subpackage too for EPEL5

		 I'm not considering this as blocking but correct this in future please.

OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. 
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines.

		-> 	ASL 2.0

OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
OK: 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 must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.

		-> Generated tarball, do it with diff
				diff  java-dirq-dirq-1.3/ java-dirq-1.3-2.fc18.src/java-dirq-dirq-1.3/

OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. 

		-> rawhide :

		-> EL6 :

		-> EL5 :

		-> F19 :

N/A: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work on that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the corresponding ExcludeArch line. 

OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
N/A: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden.
N/A: Every binary RPM package (or subpackage) which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. 
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
N/A: If the package is designed to be relocatable, the packager must state this fact in the request for review, along with the rationalization for relocation of that specific package. Without this, use of Prefix: /usr is considered a blocker. 
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. 
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). 

		-> javadoc

OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. 
N/A: Static libraries must be in a -static package. 
N/A: Development files must be in a -devel package. 
N/A: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency: Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release}
N/A: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built.
N/A: Packages containing GUI applications must include a %{name}.desktop file, and that file must be properly installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section. If you feel that your packaged GUI application does not need a .desktop file, you must put a comment in the spec file with your explanation. 
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

OK: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. 
OK: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
OK: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

	mock -r epel-5-x86_64 /tmp/java-dirq-1.3-2.fc18.src.rpm 

	Finish: build phase for java-dirq-1.3-2.fc18.src.rpm
	INFO: Done(/tmp/java-dirq-1.3-2.fc18.src.rpm) Config(epel-5-x86_64) 2 minutes 1 seconds
	INFO: Results and/or logs in: /var/lib/mock/epel-5-x86_64/result
	Finish: run

OK: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.

	-> Noarch package

OK: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
	-> java library, jar produced correctly

N/A: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague, and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. 
N/A: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. 
N/A: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg. A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb.
N/A: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file instead of the file itself. 
N/A: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.

 ==> Only minor warnings : Package accepted :)

Comment 10 Massimo Paladin 2013-05-29 15:44:49 UTC
Thank you for the review, I will fix what requested.

Comment 11 Massimo Paladin 2013-05-29 15:48:40 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: java-dirq
Short Description: Java directory based queue
Owners: mpaladin
Branches: f17 f18 f19 el5 el6

Comment 12 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-05-29 16:48:14 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2013-05-30 11:51:15 UTC
java-dirq-1.3-3.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2013-05-30 11:51:27 UTC
java-dirq-1.3-3.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2013-05-30 11:51:40 UTC
java-dirq-1.3-3.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2013-05-30 11:51:53 UTC
java-dirq-1.3-3.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2013-05-30 11:52:02 UTC
java-dirq-1.3-3.el5 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 5.

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2013-06-07 23:26:09 UTC
java-dirq-1.3-3.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2013-06-07 23:50:33 UTC
java-dirq-1.3-3.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2013-06-08 03:35:45 UTC
java-dirq-1.3-3.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2013-06-16 18:33:58 UTC
java-dirq-1.3-3.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2013-06-16 18:36:44 UTC
java-dirq-1.3-3.el5 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 5 stable repository.

Comment 23 Michael Schwendt 2013-07-04 11:14:29 UTC
> %dir %{_javadocdir}/%{srcname}
> %{_javadocdir}/%{srcname}

As in the other reviews, if


is a directory, it is included as %dir with everything below it. The extra %dir line is not needed. Prefer a trailing slash to increase readability of the %files section:


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