[Bug 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 Michael Simacek changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2015-02-24 06:58:33 --- Comment #11 from Michael Simacek --- I see that it's been built already as options-1.2-4.fc22. -- 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 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. 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #9 from Mo Morsi --- Thanks for review New Package SCM Request === Package Name: options Short Description: Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library Upstream URL: https://github.com/headius/options Owners: mmorsi Branches: f20 f21 InitialCC: -- 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 Michael Simacek changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #8 from Michael Simacek --- Looks ok to me now. 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 --- Comment #7 from Mo Morsi --- Updated Spec: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options.spec SRPM: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options-1.2-4.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8324554 -- 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 --- Comment #6 from Michael Simacek --- (In reply to Mo Morsi from comment #4) > Included the license file in the main package and marked as %doc (including > it in both would result in conflicts wouldn't it? If you use the %doc directive correctly, it certainly wouldn't as it installs it into directory named after the package. The correct usage would be not moving it in install - %doc paths are relative to the builddir (the directory where sources are unpacked), so it's unnecessary. So remove the mv line and just add: %doc LICENSE-2.0.txt to both %files sections and it should work. And I just noticed you have group tag in the javadoc subpackage, please remove it. -- 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 --- Comment #5 from Mo Morsi --- Sorry that should be Spec: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options.spec SRPM: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options-1.2-3.fc20.src.rpm Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8287262 -- 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 --- Comment #4 from Mo Morsi --- Included the license file in the main package and marked as %doc (including it in both would result in conflicts wouldn't it?). Updated: Spec: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options.spec SRPM: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options-1.2-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji: koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8287262 joda-timezones (bz #1152246) has also been updated if you have the cycles. Thanks. -- 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 --- Comment #3 from Michael Simacek --- I missed the comment, sorry for blocking this. The license file is now only installed in the javadoc subpackage but it's missing from the main package. And it should be marked as %doc in both. -- 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 --- Comment #2 from Mo Morsi --- Thanks for review (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1) > Package Review > == > > Issues: > - ASL 2.0 license requires the license text to be included in the RPM > - Incorrect changelog format (missing version-release) > - Group tag is obsolete, please don't use it Fixed. https://github.com/headius/options/issues/1 Spec URL: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options.spec SRPM URL: https://mmorsi.fedorapeople.org/staging/options-1.2-2.fc20.src.rpm Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7864863 -- 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247
--- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek ---
Package Review
==
Issues:
- ASL 2.0 license requires the license text to be included in the RPM
- Incorrect changelog format (missing version-release)
- Group tag is obsolete, please don't use it
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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:
"*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/msimacek/1152247-options/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/options, /usr/share/maven-
metadata
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms/options,
/usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: 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.
[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 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 package
[Bug 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 Michael Simacek 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 1152247] Review Request: options - Library for managing sets of JVM properties to configure an app or library
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152247 Mo Morsi changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1152249 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1152249 [Bug 1152249] Update to latest JRuby 1.7.16 -- 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
