[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1002721 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=sYbzRDDkKF&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1019650 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1019650 [Bug 1019650] tika: Add parsers module -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|1002721 | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002721 [Bug 1002721] Review Request: tika - A content analysis toolkit -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 Björn "besser82" Esser changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||bjoern.es...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|bjoern.es...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Björn "besser82" Esser --- taken ;) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703
Björn "besser82" Esser changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser ---
Package one small issue. No blockers :)
#
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
===
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
---> please add them as BuildRequires during import.
= 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "Unknown or generated". 6
files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1002703-juniversalchardet/licensecheck.txt
---> License-tag is fine. :)
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> missing `BuildRequires: jpackage-utils`.
Can be fixed during import.
[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]: 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]: 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
Java:
[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)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
or update to latest guidelines
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Req
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- BuildRequires: jpackage-utils and Required: jpackage-utils is non needed because jpackage-utils (retired) was replaced by javapackages-tools Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: juniversalchardet Short Description: A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet Owners: gil Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc20 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.f ||c19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-10-28 23:36:25 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1002703] Review Request: juniversalchardet - A Java port of Mozilla's universalchardet
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002703 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Fixed In Version|juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.f |juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.f |c19 |c20 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- juniversalchardet-1.0.3-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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
