[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: antlr4 Short Description: Java parser generator Owners: mizdebsk msrb msimacek gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig Upstream URL: http://www.antlr.org/ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed||2015-03-31 11:53:02 --- Comment #11 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- Built for rawhide. Cloning. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9380964 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||ceclau...@hotmail.com --- Comment #12 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1135700 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 --- Comment #13 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- You should not close a review manually. Bodhi can handle that for you when you specify the bug# in the update. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 --- Comment #14 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #13) You should not close a review manually. Bodhi can handle that for you when you specify the bug# in the update. Bodhi is not involved as this is package is for F23+ only. (Besides that I prefer to close bugs myself, Bodhi is not smart enough to close them properly.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||msima...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msima...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms changed: What|Removed |Added CC||projects...@smart.ms --- Comment #2 from Raphael Groner projects...@smart.ms --- Some things first from a manual review of your spec file: %bcond_without bootstrap What's this for? # Upstream uses an experimental bulid tool (http://bildtool.org/), So why not package this tool in first place and use it as a dependency? # Prebuild binaries, used for bootstrapping only I would not suggest to use copr therefore. You should look for a more statically available location to provide those binaries. Further, it is not allowed to ship prebuild binaries in an official Fedora package, at least not without allowed exception. %prep Use cp -p here to preserve timestamps. %files You have to include the license file in each subpackage. Alternatively you should require the runtime subpackage for all other packages incl. the main package that you build here from the source tarball. When the above things are fixed, I could do also an official fedora-review. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080
--- Comment #4 from Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- Why the weird source URL?
- The prebuilt RPMS on Copr don't match the ones in SRPM
(not a problem, just FYI)
- antlr4-4.5/runtime/Java/lib - there's a bundled jar, should be removed in
prep
- Minor detail - double colon in %jpackage_script classpath.
It does nothing, but it's confusing to the people who read the specfile
= 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:
BSD (3 clause), Unknown or generated. 40 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/msimacek/reviews/1206080-antlr4/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
Java:
[!]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Test run failed
[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:
[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.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa}
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 --- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2) Some things first from a manual review of your spec file: %bcond_without bootstrap What's this for? This allows the same SRPM to be built either in bootstrap or non-bootstrap mode by passing --with bootstrap or --without bootstrap to tools like rpmbuild or mock. # Upstream uses an experimental bulid tool (http://bildtool.org/), So why not package this tool in first place and use it as a dependency? Because this is not necessary and it would be impractical to do so - the build tool downloads dependencies from network so build script would need to be heavily patched anyways. # Prebuild binaries, used for bootstrapping only I would not suggest to use copr therefore. You should look for a more statically available location to provide those binaries. Further, it is not allowed to ship prebuild binaries in an official Fedora package, at least not without allowed exception. I don't see why copr rpms shouldn't be used. Prebuilt binaries are used only for the initial bootstrap build and will be removed afterwards. There is FPC bootstrap exception for antlr4, see https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/517 %prep Use cp -p here to preserve timestamps. Minor issue, but I'll fix that. %files You have to include the license file in each subpackage. Alternatively you should require the runtime subpackage for all other packages incl. the main package that you build here from the source tarball. License files don't need to be installed in antlr4 and antlr4-maven-plugin packages because both of them depend on antlr4-runtime which includes license text. antlr4-javadoc doesn't depend on any other antlr4 subpackage and therefore it installs a separate copy of license text. This is in accordance with https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 --- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #4) - Why the weird source URL? This is a way of forcing different local file name of given source. rpmbuild sees only the part after last / character (antlr4-4.5.tar.gz) while upstream web server ignores the part after # character. Without that filename would be just 4.5.tar.gz, which is ambiguous. - The prebuilt RPMS on Copr don't match the ones in SRPM (not a problem, just FYI) Fixed. - antlr4-4.5/runtime/Java/lib - there's a bundled jar, should be removed in prep Fixed. - Minor detail - double colon in %jpackage_script classpath. It does nothing, but it's confusing to the people who read the specfile Fixed. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Bundled binaries used for bootstrapping have FPC exception. Are there any other bundled libraries? Libraries bundled in SRPM but not used during build are allowed. Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/antlr4/antlr4.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/antlr4/antlr4-4.5-2.fc23.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #7 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: antlr4 Short Description: Java parser generator Owners: mizdebsk msrb msimacek gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Michael Simacek msima...@redhat.com --- (In reply to Mikolaj Izdebski from comment #5) (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #4) - Why the weird source URL? This is a way of forcing different local file name of given source. rpmbuild sees only the part after last / character (antlr4-4.5.tar.gz) while upstream web server ignores the part after # character. Without that filename would be just 4.5.tar.gz, which is ambiguous. - The prebuilt RPMS on Copr don't match the ones in SRPM (not a problem, just FYI) Fixed. - antlr4-4.5/runtime/Java/lib - there's a bundled jar, should be removed in prep Fixed. - Minor detail - double colon in %jpackage_script classpath. It does nothing, but it's confusing to the people who read the specfile Fixed. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. Bundled binaries used for bootstrapping have FPC exception. Are there any other bundled libraries? Libraries bundled in SRPM but not used during build are allowed. No, I meant the bundled jar. Spec URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/antlr4/antlr4.spec SRPM URL: http://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/antlr4/antlr4-4.5-2.fc23.src.rpm APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||puiterw...@redhat.com Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs- --- Comment #8 from Patrick Uiterwijk puiterw...@redhat.com --- Please add the upstream URL field to your SCM request. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1197395 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1197395 [Bug 1197395] checkstyle-6.4.1 is available -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1206080] Review Request: antlr4 - Java parser generator
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 --- Comment #1 from Mikolaj Izdebski mizde...@redhat.com --- FPC bootstrap bundling exception: https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/517 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
