Bug 971431 - Review Request: jboss-ejb-3.2-api - Enterprise JavaBeans 3.2 API
Review Request: jboss-ejb-3.2-api - Enterprise JavaBeans 3.2 API
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Marek Goldmann
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
: 981350 (view as bug list)
Depends On:
  Show dependency treegraph
Reported: 2013-06-06 09:40 EDT by gil cattaneo
Modified: 2013-07-27 12:13 EDT (History)
3 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: jboss-ejb-3.2-api-1.0.0-0.1.Alpha2.fc19
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2013-07-24 20:44:26 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
mgoldman: fedora‑review+
limburgher: fedora‑cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description gil cattaneo 2013-06-06 09:40:41 EDT
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jboss-ejb-3.2-api.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jboss-ejb-3.2-api-1.0.0-0.1.Alpha2.fc18.src.rpm
JSR 345: Enterprise JavaBeans(TM) 3.2 API
Fedora Account System Username: gil

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5475485
Comment 2 gil cattaneo 2013-07-04 11:00:43 EDT
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5573391
Comment 3 Marek Goldmann 2013-07-05 02:45:31 EDT
*** Bug 981350 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Comment 4 Marek Goldmann 2013-07-05 03:49:13 EDT
I'll take this for review. In the meantime - please remove the "TM" from bug title, description and summary.
Comment 6 Marek Goldmann 2013-07-15 07:50:25 EDT
I'm pretty busy ATM, if someone else is interested in picking up this review - please assign this ticket to you and proceed with review.
Comment 7 Marek Goldmann 2013-07-16 04:54:00 EDT
Package Review

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

===== 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
[-]: 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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jboss-
[x]: 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". 81 files have unknown license.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
     be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[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 30720 bytes in 2 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.
[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
     Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
     pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
     utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

===== 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: 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
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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.)
[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: jboss-ejb-3.2-api-1.0.0-0.1.Alpha2.fc20.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
# rpmlint jboss-ejb-3.2-api-javadoc jboss-ejb-3.2-api
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'

jboss-ejb-3.2-api-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

jboss-ejb-3.2-api (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):



Source checksums
https://github.com/jboss/jboss-ejb-api_spec/archive/jboss-ejb-api_3.2_spec-1.0.0.Alpha2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 70292abf9b05c67767ab59de80864ec56935076043d43f41c156d0046360dfe3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 70292abf9b05c67767ab59de80864ec56935076043d43f41c156d0046360dfe3

Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 971431 -m fedora-rawhide-i386

*** APPROVED ***

I'm approving this package, but please fix the following issues at the import time:


[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

Please add the cddl license text file. You can find it here: http://jcp.org/aboutJava/communityprocess/cddl.txt
Comment 8 gil cattaneo 2013-07-16 06:31:03 EDT

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jboss-ejb-3.2-api.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jboss-ejb-3.2-api-1.0.0-0.1.Alpha2.fc19.src.rpm

- add the cddl license text file

New Package SCM Request
Package Name: jboss-ejb-3.2-api
Short Description: Enterprise JavaBeans 3.2 API
Owners: gil
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC: java-sig
Comment 9 Gwyn Ciesla 2013-07-16 08:06:37 EDT
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2013-07-16 08:49:50 EDT
jboss-ejb-3.2-api-1.0.0-0.1.Alpha2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2013-07-16 22:58:57 EDT
jboss-ejb-3.2-api-1.0.0-0.1.Alpha2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
Comment 12 Fedora Update System 2013-07-24 20:44:26 EDT
jboss-ejb-3.2-api-1.0.0-0.1.Alpha2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

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