Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.1.0-2.fc18.src.rpm Description: DavMail is a POP/IMAP/SMTP/Caldav/Carddav/LDAP gateway for Microsoft Exchange Fedora Account System Username: maci Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4860100
*** Bug 894411 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Update: * Fri Mar 1 2013 Simone Sclavi <darkhado> 4.2.0-1 - Updated to 4.2.0 release * Fri Feb 8 2013 Simone Sclavi <darkhado> 4.1.0-3 - Fixed summary - Fixed dependencies for OBS building SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.2.0-1.fc18.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5072316
1. There's no Requires section. Should have at least java and jpackage-utils.
Invalid changelog section; Invalid %define, should use %global; davmail should be replaced by %{name} as many as possible; Maybe install with -p option to preserve the timestamp; No need to write "#OBS failes to resolve xml-common-apis #when building for Fedora 18". OBS is not Fedora Product;
Update: * Fri Apr 26 2013 Marcel Wysocki <maci> - 4.2.0-2 - removed OBS comment - use install -p - use global instead of define macro - replaced davmail with name macro - add missing requires SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.2.0-2.fc18.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5305206
Update: * Wed May 22 2013 Simone Sclavi <darkhado> 4.3.0-1 - Updated to 4.3.0 release - Fixed 'class-path-in-manifest' rpmlint issue SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.0-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5471776
Icon cache should be updated: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache BTW, you have a gmai typo in some of your changelogs.
Update: * Wed Jun 05 2013 Marcel Wysocki <maci> - 4.3.0-2 - fix gmail typo in changelog - regenerate icon cache SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.0-2.fc19.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5473923
Update: * Thu Jun 06 2013 Marcel Wysocki <maci> - 4.3.1-1 - update to 4.3.1 SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.1-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5474770
Update * Mon Jun 10 2013 Marcel Wysocki <maci> - 4.3.2-1 - update to 4.3.2 SPEC URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.2-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5486365
On my TODO for this week. Will have to setup some vm-infrastructure for exhaustive testing of this before.
A first quick look at it reveals: bundled .jar-files (shipped in Sources0 and redistributed in rpm), see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software tarball ships: activation-1.1.1.jar ant-deb-0.0.1.jar commons-codec-1.3.jar commons-collections-3.1.jar commons-httpclient-3.1.jar commons-logging-1.0.4.jar htmlcleaner-2.2.jar jackrabbit-webdav-2.4.3.jar jarbundler-2.1.0.jar jcharset-1.3.jar jcifs-1.3.14.jar jdom-1.0.jar jsmoothgen-ant-0.9.9-7-mgu2.jar junit-3.8.1.jar libgrowl-0.2.jar libgrowl.jnilib log4j-1.2.16.jar mail-1.4.3.jar nsisant-1.2.jar redline-1.1.9.jar servlet-api.jar slf4j-api-1.3.1.jar slf4j-log4j12-1.3.1.jar stax2-api-3.1.1.jar stax-api-1.0.1.jar swt-3.7-gtk-linux-x86_64.jar swt-3.7-gtk-linux-x86.jar swt-3.7-win32-x86_64.jar swt-3.7-win32-x86.jar winrun4j-0.4.4.jar woodstox-core-asl-4.1.2.jar xercesImpl-2.8.1.jar These are redisted with rpm: activation-1.1.1.jar commons-codec-1.3.jar commons-collections-3.1.jar commons-httpclient-3.1.jar commons-logging-1.0.4.jar htmlcleaner-2.2.jar jackrabbit-webdav-2.4.3.jar jcharset-1.3.jar jcifs-1.3.14.jar jdom-1.0.jar junit-3.8.1.jar libgrowl-0.2.jar libgrowl.jnilib log4j-1.2.16.jar mail-1.4.3.jar slf4j-api-1.3.1.jar slf4j-log4j12-1.3.1.jar stax2-api-3.1.1.jar stax-api-1.0.1.jar swt-3.7-gtk-linux-x86_64.jar winrun4j-0.4.4.jar woodstox-core-asl-4.1.2.jar xercesImpl-2.8.1.jar * checking for activation No matches found * checking for commons-codec apache-commons-codec-1.8-1.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-codec.jar * checking for commons-collections apache-commons-collections-3.2.1-16.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-collections.jar * checking for commons-httpclient 1:jakarta-commons-httpclient-3.1-13.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-httpclient.jar Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-httpclient3.jar * checking for commons-logging apache-commons-logging-1.1.2-2.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-logging-adapters.jar Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-logging-api.jar Filename : /usr/share/java/commons-logging.jar * checking for htmlcleaner No matches found * checking for jackrabbit-webdav jackrabbit-webdav-2.4.2-6.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/jackrabbit-webdav.jar * checking for jcharset No matches found * checking for jcifs jcifs-1.3.17-7.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/jcifs.jar * checking for jdom jdom-1.1.3-4.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/jdom.jar * checking for junit junit-4.11-1.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/junit.jar Filename : /usr/share/java/junit4.jar * checking for libgrowl No matches found * checking for log4j log4j-1.2.17-10.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/log4j.jar * checking for mail No matches found * checking for slf4j-api No matches found * checking for slf4j-log4j12 No matches found * checking for stax-api No matches found * checking for stax2-api stax2-api-3.1.1-6.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/stax2-api.jar * checking for swt-gtk (jni-lib) No matches found * checking for winrun4j No matches found (is this really needed on Linux???) * checking for woodstox-core-asl woodstox-core-4.1.2-5.fc19.noarch Repo : fedora Filename : /usr/share/java/woodstox-core-asl.jar * checking for xercesImpl No matches found Check which are actually needed BuildRequires, if not already pkged for Fedora package them from original upstream source, and build/link (eg. ln -s) against those, please. I'll start next review on updated pkg, then. If you need any help feel free to PM me directly.
These are also in Fedora, already: * checking for mail javamail * checking for slf4j-api, slf4j-log4j12 slf4j * checking for stax-api bea-stax-api * checking for swt-gtk (jni-lib) eclipse-swt Not yet pkged or found in Fedora: * activation * jcharset * libgrowl * xercesImpl Not needed: * winrun4j (tool enhancing javaw)
You can find the needed other Sources here: * activation (JavaBeans Application Framework) http://www.gnu.org/software/classpathx/jaf/jaf.html * jcharset http://www.freeutils.net/source/jcharset/ * libgrowl http://sourceforge.net/projects/libgrowl/ * xercesImpl http://xerces.apache.org/mirrors.cgi
Without being aware of this rewiew request, I have been working on the original spec file, distributed in the davmail project: http://davmail.svn.sourceforge.net/viewvc/davmail/trunk/src/contribs/rpm/SPECS/davmail.spec in order to remove the distributed jars. There are also some features included in the original spec and missing in bug #894413: - running davmail as an unpriviledged-user service - logging + logrotate The latest effort spec for fedora is available at https://svn.fysik.dtu.dk/projects/rpmbuild/trunk/SPECS/davmail-src.spec http://download.opensuse.org/repositories/home:/marcindulak/Fedora_18/src/davmail-4.3.2-31.1.src.rpm Please note that davmail requires several patches, already worked-out by debian community, in order to build without redistributing jars (e.g. patch for build.xml: https://svn.fysik.dtu.dk/projects/rpmbuild/trunk/SOURCES/davmail-0004-Set-classpath-add-target-davmail-lib.patch). Another patch removes dependency on libgrowl, which seems to be needed only for OSX. It would be nice if we converge our efforts, how could we organize that?
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #13) > Not yet pkged or found in Fedora: > > * activation It's part of JDK now. > * xercesImpl Provided by package xerces-j2. Also part of nwer JDKs (JAXB). In Fedora 19+, to replace binary JARs with symlinks to system libraries I recommend running xmvn-subst (part of xmvn package). See: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2013-May/004812.html
hi see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#JAR_file_installation The Java guidelines require arch-independent JARs to go under %_javadir, not %_datadir. Typically this is resolved by using symlinks in %_datadir (as is already done for dependency jars outside the package) regards
(In reply to Björn Esser from comment #14) > You can find the needed other Sources here: > * libgrowl > http://sourceforge.net/projects/libgrowl/ i think this is the right one http://growl.info, but, maybe, is required only for OSX. https://github.com/baohaojun/davmail regards
(In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #16) > > * activation > > It's part of JDK now. > > > * xercesImpl > > Provided by package xerces-j2. Also part of nwer JDKs (JAXB). (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #18) > > * libgrowl > i think this is the right one http://growl.info, but, maybe, is required > only for OSX. https://github.com/baohaojun/davmail So we have htmlcleaner avail in RAWHIDE and F19, now. Gil has just packaged jcharset and waiting for review. So we can start making new progress here, I think.
there seems to be an "srconly" tarball which does not bundle any libraries. maybe we can work from there.
(In reply to Marcel Wysocki from comment #20) > there seems to be an "srconly" tarball which does not bundle any libraries. > maybe we can work from there. See bug #894413 comment #15 - i have a spec based on scronly working, it just requires polishing. If nobody objects i will create a patch that is based on bug #894413 as orig and incorporates my changes. I have also a general comment for packaging: we should profit from debian peoples work and original spec distributed upstream by davmail (i based on it) and not try make one from scratch.
(In reply to Marcel Wysocki from comment #20) > there seems to be an "srconly" tarball which does not bundle any libraries. > maybe we can work from there. Seems to be a good idea. (In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #21) > See bug #894413 comment #15 - i have a spec based on scronly working, it > just requires polishing. Another good point to start further process. > If nobody objects i will create a patch that is based on bug #894413 as orig > and incorporates my changes. OK, so just attach your patch to this bug, so we can start discussing about. > I have also a general comment for packaging: > we should profit from debian peoples work and original spec distributed > upstream by davmail (i based on it) and not try make one from scratch. There are some nice patches from debian avail, esp. unbundling libs.jar and removing unneeded libgrowl. I think starting a three-way-merge from existing spec, Marcin's spec and upstream's spec will give us some solid base to build-up from here.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - No %config files under /usr. Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files ----> I see this is how mylvmbackup is packaged upstream https://build.opensuse.org/package/show?package=mylvmbackup&project=home%3ALenzGr , but we can't use %config under /usr in Fedora. A solution could be to use, e.g.: hooksdir=/etc/mylvmbackup/hooks in /etc/mylvmbackup.conf and create that dir in spec. I guess one should communicate this choice upstream. Another comment: the upstream build.opensuse.org and the current spec share some similarities - if you based on upstream - include this information in changelog. ===== 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. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. ----> /etc/mylvmbackup.conf refers to /etc/my.cnf, and this is provided by (let's drop el5 - Requires: mysql): el6, f17-f18: Requires: mysql-libs f19-: Requires: mariadb-libs [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: 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: "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mock/977646-mylvmbackup/licensecheck.txt ----> false positive due to /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm files [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. [x]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ----> see "Package requires other packages for directories it uses." above [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 5 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. [ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. ----> see "No %config files under /usr." above [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Perl: [ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [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. [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. [ ]: 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. [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. ===== 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mylvmbackup-0.14-1.fc20.noarch.rpm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/logerr.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/backupfailure.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/preflush.pm ----> see "No %config files under /usr." above mylvmbackup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mylvmbackup.conf 0600L ----> This is due to /etc/mylvmbackup.conf potentially containing sensitive information (mysql password, ...). There is a "--password=string" option to mylvmbackup, but in case someone writes password into /etc/mylvmbackup.conf it's safer to keep the permission as they are now (0600). mylvmbackup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/mylvmbackup ----> incorrect postal address of FSF "In all cases, upstream should be informed about this. This is the only requirement with respect to this error." http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address Please write to https://launchpad.net/~mylvmbackup-discuss or https://bugs.launchpad.net/mylvmbackup 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint mylvmbackup mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/logerr.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/backupfailure.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile /usr/share/mylvmbackup/preflush.pm mylvmbackup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mylvmbackup.conf 0600L mylvmbackup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/mylvmbackup 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- mylvmbackup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(mylvmbackup) perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3) perl(Date::Format) perl(Sys::Hostname) perl(strict) Provides -------- mylvmbackup: config(mylvmbackup) mylvmbackup perl(backupfailure) perl(logerr) perl(preflush) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.lenzg.net/mylvmbackup/mylvmbackup-0.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a979082f525f5b0b44bd09169938f2b5d8394fc403fc8b6a6e8b809d7c1a5724 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a979082f525f5b0b44bd09169938f2b5d8394fc403fc8b6a6e8b809d7c1a5724 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 977646
I'm sorry - discard it - wrong bug! I(In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #23) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > [ ] = Manual review needed > > > Issues: > ======= > - No %config files under /usr. > Note: %config(noreplace) /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Configuration_files > > ----> I see this is how mylvmbackup is packaged upstream > > https://build.opensuse.org/package/ > show?package=mylvmbackup&project=home%3ALenzGr , but we can't use %config > under /usr in Fedora. > A solution could be to use, e.g.: > hooksdir=/etc/mylvmbackup/hooks in /etc/mylvmbackup.conf > and create that dir in spec. > I guess one should communicate this choice upstream. > > Another comment: the upstream build.opensuse.org and the current spec > share some similarities - if you based on upstream - include this > information in changelog. > > > ===== 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. > [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [x]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > > ----> /etc/mylvmbackup.conf refers to /etc/my.cnf, and this is provided by > (let's drop el5 - Requires: mysql): > el6, f17-f18: Requires: mysql-libs > f19-: Requires: mariadb-libs > > [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. > [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. > [ ]: 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: > "Unknown or generated". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of > licensecheck in /home/mock/977646-mylvmbackup/licensecheck.txt > > ----> false positive due to /usr/share/mylvmbackup/*.pm files > > [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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. > [x]: 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. > [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. > > ----> see "Package requires other packages for directories it uses." above > > [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. > [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. > Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 5 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. > [ ]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. > > ----> see "No %config files under /usr." above > > [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. > [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > > Perl: > [ ]: Package contains the mandatory BuildRequires and Requires:. > > ===== SHOULD items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). > [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. > [ ]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [ ]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [ ]: 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. > [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. > > ===== 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: mylvmbackup-0.14-1.fc20.noarch.rpm > mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile > /usr/share/mylvmbackup/logerr.pm > mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile > /usr/share/mylvmbackup/backupfailure.pm > mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile > /usr/share/mylvmbackup/preflush.pm > > ----> see "No %config files under /usr." above > > mylvmbackup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mylvmbackup.conf 0600L > > ----> This is due to /etc/mylvmbackup.conf potentially containing > sensitive information (mysql password, ...). > There is a "--password=string" option to mylvmbackup, > but in case someone writes password into /etc/mylvmbackup.conf > it's safer to keep the permission as they are now (0600). > > mylvmbackup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/mylvmbackup > > ----> incorrect postal address of FSF > "In all cases, upstream should be informed about this. This is the > only requirement with respect to this error." > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address > Please write to https://launchpad.net/~mylvmbackup-discuss > or https://bugs.launchpad.net/mylvmbackup > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > # rpmlint mylvmbackup > mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile > /usr/share/mylvmbackup/logerr.pm > mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile > /usr/share/mylvmbackup/backupfailure.pm > mylvmbackup.noarch: W: non-etc-or-var-file-marked-as-conffile > /usr/share/mylvmbackup/preflush.pm > mylvmbackup.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/mylvmbackup.conf 0600L > mylvmbackup.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/bin/mylvmbackup > > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings. > # echo 'rpmlint-done:' > > > > Requires > -------- > mylvmbackup (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > config(mylvmbackup) > perl(:MODULE_COMPAT_5.16.3) > perl(Date::Format) > perl(Sys::Hostname) > perl(strict) > > > > Provides > -------- > mylvmbackup: > config(mylvmbackup) > mylvmbackup > perl(backupfailure) > perl(logerr) > perl(preflush) > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > http://www.lenzg.net/mylvmbackup/mylvmbackup-0.14.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : > a979082f525f5b0b44bd09169938f2b5d8394fc403fc8b6a6e8b809d7c1a5724 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : > a979082f525f5b0b44bd09169938f2b5d8394fc403fc8b6a6e8b809d7c1a5724 > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 977646
Hi, here is the patch + SOURCES promised in bug #894413 c#21 http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/davmail.spec.v02a.patch http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/davmail.ant.properties http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/0001-no-windows-service.patch http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/0002-no-osx-tray.patch http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/0003-base64-enc-dec.patch http://marcindulak.fedorapeople.org/packages/davmail/v02a/0004-Set-classpath-add-target-davmail-lib.patch I don't include logging/logrotate/init(should switch to systemd), let's do one step at a time. BR may need to be trimmed/fixed - i'm not familiar enough with java. I have noticed that htmlcleaner is under /usr/share/java/htmlcleaner/htmlcleaner.jar and not as usually under /usr/share/java - is it a new convention of %mvn_install?
(In reply to Marcin.Dulak from comment #25) > I have noticed that htmlcleaner is under > /usr/share/java/htmlcleaner/htmlcleaner.jar and not as usually under > /usr/share/java - is it a new > convention of %mvn_install? you can used in htmlcleaner spec file %mvn_file :%{name} %{name} %build %mvn_build %install %mvn_install JAR will be in %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar or %mvn_file :%{name} %{name}/%{name} %{name} %mvn_install will then install JAR file for artifact "any_groupId:%{name}" to the location %{_javadir}/%{name}/%{name}.jar and it will also create symlink %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar
Any new progress here?
sorry, i have been quite busy with real life recently. i will try to incorperate patches from https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413#c25 now
Update: Spec URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: http://maci.satgnu.net/rpmbuild/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.3-3.fc19.src.rpm Changelog: * Fri Jul 26 2013 maci <maci> - 4.3.3-3 - fix some dependencies * Thu Jun 27 2013 Marcin Dulak <Marcin.Dulak> 4.3.3-2 * bug #894413 c#21 : partly merge (no service or logging for now)
Created attachment 781180 [details] Italian localization files This files add Italian support for davmail please, copy these file in src/java thanks regards
Created attachment 781181 [details] Italian localization files 2 Italian localization files 2
Created attachment 781198 [details] Italian localization files 2
Created attachment 781212 [details] Italian localization files 2 sorry upload the old one
@gil: localization file merged in upstream, thanks for your contribution
hi thanks! the localization file are 2... i see in the new version there is only one (davmailmessages_it.properties), have you sent also imapflags_it.properties ? thanks
Indeed, second file merged
Update: * Mon Oct 14 2013 maci <maci> - 4.3.4-1 - update to 4.3.4 Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.github.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.4-1.fc19.src.rpm Koji URL: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6058061 anything still in the way of this being accepted ? once the review process is done i would really appreciate if someone would co-maintain this package
hi there are some problems: you must install davmail jar in /usr/share/java [1] you must install pom/s (and depmap) when this/ese file/s is/are available/s [2] [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Installation_directory [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Maven_pom.xml_files_and_depmaps
other problems: davmail-4.3.4-2174/src/java/com/sun/mail/imap/protocol/BASE64MailboxDecoder.java davmail-4.3.4-2174/src/java/com/sun/mail/imap/protocol/BASE64MailboxEncoder.java these two file are already present in javamail package (CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions) davmail-4.3.4-2174/src/java/com/ctc/wstx/sr/StreamScanner.java these is available woodstox-core package (ASL 2.0 or LGPLv2+ or BSD) you nust remove this classes [1] if you want use these classes you must open an FPC exception [2] where you must explain why you want use these classes e.g. https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/292 licanse field is incorrect, should be: CDDL or GPLv2 with exceptions and (ASL 2.0 or LGPLv2+ or BSD) [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Exceptions
About BASE64MailboxDecoder and BASE64MailboxEncoder: according to Alexandre Rossi, this patch is only required with libgnumail, can be dropped with javamail. About StreamScanner: XML 1.1 allows most chars in encoded form, 1.0 does not (only 0x9 0xA and 0xD). However, Exchange sends many encoded chars while still advertising XML 1.0 => Woodstox reports those characters as illegal and fails. The best workaround would be to add an option to the parser to disable this control and thus submit a patch to Woodstox project.
(In reply to Mickaël Guessant from comment #40) > About BASE64MailboxDecoder and BASE64MailboxEncoder: according to Alexandre > Rossi, this patch is only required with libgnumail, can be dropped with > javamail. please, then remove these ^^ unnecessary files > About StreamScanner: XML 1.1 allows most chars in encoded form, 1.0 does not > (only 0x9 0xA and 0xD). However, Exchange sends many encoded chars while > still advertising XML 1.0 => Woodstox reports those characters as illegal > and fails. > > The best workaround would be to add an option to the parser to disable this > control and thus submit a patch to Woodstox project. you must open an FPC exception as describe in my previous comment
INFO: Downloading .spec and .srpm files ERROR: 'Error 404 downloading https://raw.github.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.4-1.fc19.src.rpm' (logs in /home/besser82/.cache/fedora-review.log)
Sorry, forgot to post Update: * Mon Oct 14 2013 maci <maci> - 4.3.4-2 - install into /usr/share/java - add maven pom stuff - minor cleanups Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.github.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SRPMS/davmail-4.3.4-2.fc19.src.rpm
hi is required these changes in the pom file unavailable/unused deps %pom_remove_dep org.boris.winrun4j: it's part of JDK now %pom_remove_dep javax.activation: because eclipse-swt dont provides pom or depmap %pom_xpath_inject "pom:dependencies/pom:dependency[pom:artifactId='swt']" " <scope>system</scope> <systemPath>$(build-classpath swt)</systemPath>" please apply these changes in %setup section patches should have this format "%{name} - %{version} - REASON.patch" and all patches should have an upstream bug link or comment https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines?rd=Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment remain again the problem described in https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=894413#c39 related to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries
Woodstox issue submitted to upstream project: http://jira.codehaus.org/browse/WSTX-293
temporarily, can ask to the maintainer of woodstox-core package, to apply this changes to our package
Update: * Tue Nov 26 2013 maci <maci> - 4.4.0-1 - update to 4.4.0 Spec URL: https://raw.github.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SPECS/davmail.spec SRPM URL: https://raw.github.com/maci0/rpmbuild/master/SRPMS/davmail-4.4.0-1.fc19.src.rpm
Just a suggestion: Could you use Marcel Wysocki <maci> all the time instead of mixed maci?
Any update on this?
anyone else want to take this over ? Havent had time recently to look into this.
Just an enquiry as to whether there's any further progress? (and to signal enthusiasm for this to become a Fedora package -- thank you for the effort that's got it this far)
Let me add my enthusiasm too, as two more months have passed.
Please build also for EPEL7.
Well, I managed to build on Centos 7, see: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:mguessan:branches:home:achimh:branches:home:dammage:davmail/davmail Note that this is still based on source package *with libs*, not source only. Debian package maintainers managed to build a package without binary libraries input: https://packages.debian.org/stretch/davmail
Ping. Another friendly reminder.
Latest release 5.0.0 builds on EPEL 6/7 and fedora, see: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/mguessan/davmail/build/827335/ All files are merged in trunk, see: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:mguessan:davmail/davmail This is still a spec file based on source package with included libs. To build from source only package, we would need to find all dependencies: https://packages.debian.org/sid/davmail
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
Requester, are you still interested in this package? I could continue with review or take over the request. Latest upstream version is 5.5.0 at GitHub with active work for 5.5.1 as already built on copr, please consider.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket reviewer failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we reset the status and the assignee of this ticket.
This is an automatic action taken by review-stats script. The ticket submitter failed to clear the NEEDINFO flag in a month. As per https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews we consider this ticket as DEADREVIEW and proceed to close it.