Bug 965848 - Review Request: glite-jobid-api-java - Java library handling gLite jobid
Summary: Review Request: glite-jobid-api-java - Java library handling gLite jobid
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Mattias Ellert
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2013-05-21 20:41 UTC by František Dvořák
Modified: 2015-07-08 17:04 UTC (History)
2 users (show)

Fixed In Version: glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6-1.fc19
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-09-12 01:54:23 UTC
mattias.ellert: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description František Dvořák 2013-05-21 20:41:58 UTC
Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.5-1/glite-jobid-api-java.spec
SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.5-1/glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.5-1.fc20.src.rpm
Description: JAVA implementation of library handling gLite jobid.
Fedora Account System Username: valtri

Additional notes:
- I'm upstream maintainer
- koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5407096

Comment 1 Mattias Ellert 2013-08-20 14:55:03 UTC
Package Review

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

The following lines:

%if 0%{?rhel} >= 6
BuildArch:      noarch

in the %package section for the javadoc subpackage are confusing. The
source package is noarch, which means that all binary packages built
from it are noarch. Aditional noarch tags in %package sections are
pointless. Such tags only make sense if the source packages in not

===== 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 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the 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 consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
[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]: 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.

"Requires: java" is missing.

[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files.
     ( Javadoc is separate anyway. )
[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.
[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]: 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
[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]: 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]: 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]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant

You might want to consider adding a pom file and generating a maven
dependency map to the installed package so that it can be used a
buildrequires for other packages that build using maven, even if this
package itself is built using ant. (This is however not mandatory
according to the guidelines, since upstream does not provide a pom
file. You might get a feature request filed against the package later
asking for it - I have gotten such requests for java packages I
packaged before.)

There are such users, as can be seen e.g. in


[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used

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

[!]: Uses parallel make.
[-]: 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).

The main package is missing "Requires: java". See

[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.

Version 1.3.6 is available:

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

It is a no-op though: "make: Nothing to be done for 'check'."
But that's OK - it might start doing things in future releases.

[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.
[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.

[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)

ant is used - as by upstream

[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

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

[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.

Checking: glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.5-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint glite-jobid-api-java glite-jobid-api-java-javadoc
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

glite-jobid-api-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

glite-jobid-api-java-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
http://scientific.zcu.cz/emi/emi.jobid.api-java/glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.5.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0b18388b5b0c614b64fed05042c28ae72e599066735fdb6ac9dda888d1b8e2a0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0b18388b5b0c614b64fed05042c28ae72e599066735fdb6ac9dda888d1b8e2a0

Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 965848 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64

Comment 2 František Dvořák 2013-08-22 19:31:56 UTC
Spec URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6-1/glite-jobid-api-java.spec
SRPM URL: http://scientific.zcu.cz/fedora/glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6-1/glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6-1.fc21.src.rpm

Thanks for the review! New corrected version:
- "BuildArch: noarch" removed (I guess I added it accidentaly, I have this in some platform-specific java package with JNI)
- "Require: java" added
- created Maven pom (as patch for now, but it will be in the next release);
  There are some differences between EPEL and Fedora. Used rpm %if macros, but using git branches would be possible...

Comment 3 Mattias Ellert 2013-08-24 16:06:15 UTC
The "[!]: Uses parallel make." issue is still present, but that can be fixed by changing "make" to "make %{?_smp_mflags}". That can be fixed post review.

Package approved.

Comment 4 František Dvořák 2013-08-24 22:21:41 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: glite-jobid-api-java
Short Description: Java library handling gLite jobid
Owners: valtri
Branches: f18 f19 f20 el6

Comment 5 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-08-26 12:17:49 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Comment 6 Fedora Update System 2013-08-26 15:04:10 UTC
glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2013-08-26 15:05:25 UTC
glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2013-08-26 15:06:22 UTC
glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6-1.el6 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 6.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2013-08-26 22:26:34 UTC
glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2013-09-11 18:09:01 UTC
glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6-1.el6 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 6 stable repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2013-09-12 01:54:23 UTC
glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2013-09-12 01:57:08 UTC
glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2015-06-16 15:41:21 UTC
glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.9-2.el7 has been submitted as an update for Fedora EPEL 7.

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2015-07-08 17:04:47 UTC
glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.9-2.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository.

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