[Bug 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc21 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2015-05-12 16:41:37 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 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
[Bug 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing 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
[Bug 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc21 -- 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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |MODIFIED -- 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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jbosh-0.8.0-1.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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 --- Comment #9 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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 gil cattaneo 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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jbosh Short Description: XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH) Upstream URL: https://github.com/igniterealtime/jbosh Owners: gil Branches: f21 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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #7 from Alec Leamas --- All looks good. *** 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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442
--- Comment #6 from Alec Leamas ---
Fair enough.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[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:
"Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/al/tmp/FedoraReview/1177442-jbosh/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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).
[?]: 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]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 %license.
[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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 does not use a name that already exists.
[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:
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jbosh-
[Bug 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #4) > Sorry for delay, have been away for a spring holiday. > > Basically all looks OK. > > The naming is a bit awkward. If the "real" jbosh which this is forked from > ever get packaged, this fork have acquired the generic name. I think this > should have a naming which not is plain jbosh for this reason. No guidelines > to refer to besides "apply common sense". Hoping that no one is the idea to package the "real" jbosh, i prefer keep the current name. Some reasons no import com.kenai.jbosh: - 1 unmaintained (latest update almost 4 years ago Version to 0.6.0 ) - 2 use old libraries, org.xlightweb:xlightweb is also unmaintained -- 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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 --- Comment #4 from Alec Leamas --- Sorry for delay, have been away for a spring holiday. Basically all looks OK. The naming is a bit awkward. If the "real" jbosh which this is forked from ever get packaged, this fork have acquired the generic name. I think this should have a naming which not is plain jbosh for this reason. No guidelines to refer to besides "apply common sense". -- 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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 Alec Leamas changed: What|Removed |Added CC||leamas.a...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|leamas.a...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Alec Leamas --- I'll do this one -- 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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jbosh.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc20.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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 --- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jbosh.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jbosh-0.8.0-1.fc21.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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 gil cattaneo 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 1177442] Review Request: jbosh - XEP-0124: Bidirectional-streams Over Synchronous HTTP (BOSH)
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177442 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1177443 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1177443 [Bug 1177443] smack 4.0.6 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
