Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-txmanager.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-txmanager-3.1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: Geronimo Transaction Manager Fedora Account System Username: gil
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-txmanager.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-txmanager-3.1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: Inbound and outbound connections in Geronimo are managed through the J2CA connector framework. This covers JDBC, JMS, DataSources, EIS connectivity, and connection pools. JDBC connectivity is implemented by wrapping JDBC XADataSource, ConnectionPoolDataSource, DataSource, or Driver implementations in J2CA connector wrappers. Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8956011
Fedora 19 is EOL, so '%if %{?fedora} > 20' conditional could be removed. I'd suggest adding this to have less directories: # Use the same directory of the main package for subpackage licence and docs %global _docdir_fmt %{name} Everything looks fine. I have one question: is the separate geronimo-txmanager binary package needed? It seems as if it could be folded into geronimo-transaction. ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/987558-geronimo-txmanager/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [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]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [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 DO 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 ===== Generic: [-]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in geronimo- connector , geronimo-transaction , geronimo-txmanager-javadoc Not needed. [ ]: 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 architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Could be added. [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 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [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. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: geronimo-txmanager-3.1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm geronimo-connector-3.1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm geronimo-transaction-3.1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm geronimo-txmanager-javadoc-3.1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm geronimo-txmanager-3.1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm geronimo-txmanager.noarch: W: no-documentation geronimo-connector.noarch: W: no-documentation geronimo-transaction.noarch: W: no-documentation 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- geronimo-transaction (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-jta_1.1_spec) mvn(org.jboss.spec.javax.resource:jboss-connector-api_1.7_spec) geronimo-connector (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-transaction) mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-validation_1.0_spec) mvn(org.jboss.spec.javax.resource:jboss-connector-api_1.7_spec) geronimo-txmanager (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:specs:pom:) geronimo-txmanager-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- geronimo-transaction: geronimo-transaction mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-transaction) mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-transaction:pom:) osgi(org.apache.geronimo.components.geronimo-transaction) geronimo-connector: geronimo-connector mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-connector) mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-connector:pom:) osgi(org.apache.geronimo.components.geronimo-connector) geronimo-txmanager: geronimo-txmanager mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-txmanager-parent:pom:) geronimo-txmanager-javadoc: geronimo-txmanager-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager/archive/geronimo-txmanager-parent-3.1.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 25b689ee7302cab95340e24fd03317ae2e9c25817064a1ec70fcb0ac03144f95 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 25b689ee7302cab95340e24fd03317ae2e9c25817064a1ec70fcb0ac03144f95 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 987558 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2) > Fedora 19 is EOL, so '%if %{?fedora} > 20' conditional could be removed. yes, i know this is for Fedora 20 only. After upload the package, i will remove this check > I'd suggest adding this to have less directories: > # Use the same directory of the main package for subpackage licence and docs > %global _docdir_fmt %{name} this would make it useless "License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed." https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing > Everything looks fine. I have one question: is the separate > geronimo-txmanager binary package needed? It seems as if it could be folded > into geronimo-transaction. i prefer separate each artifacts in its own package. currently is considered a best practice. ask in the fedora-java irc channel for more info thanks
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-txmanager.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/geronimo-txmanager-3.1.1-1.fc20.src.rpm
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) > (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #2) > > Fedora 19 is EOL, so '%if %{?fedora} > 20' conditional could be removed. > yes, i know this is for Fedora 20 only. After upload the package, i will > remove this check Argh, it's > 20, not >= 20. Please disregard my comment. > > I'd suggest adding this to have less directories: > > # Use the same directory of the main package for subpackage licence and docs > > %global _docdir_fmt %{name} > > this would make it useless > "License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed." > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/ > LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing Those files would be co-owned by multiple binary packages, so the files would still be there when at least one of them is installed. The only difference would be less directories and less duplicated files in the system. Just a suggestion though. > > Everything looks fine. I have one question: is the separate > > geronimo-txmanager binary package needed? It seems as if it could be folded > > into geronimo-transaction. > > i prefer separate each artifacts in its own package. > currently is considered a best practice. ask in the fedora-java irc channel > for more info OK. Package is APPROVED.
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: geronimo-txmanager Short Description: Geronimo Transaction Manager Upstream URL: http://geronimo.apache.org/ Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
geronimo-txmanager-3.1.1-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/geronimo-txmanager-3.1.1-1.fc22
geronimo-txmanager-3.1.1-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.