[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868



--- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System  ---
wildfly-arquillian-1.0.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-09-05 13:52:33



-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System  ---
wildfly-arquillian-1.0.2-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2ed5685e9b

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
wildfly-arquillian-1.0.2-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 25.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-2ed5685e9b

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868



--- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/wildfly-arquillian

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868

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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM request/s:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7580
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7581

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #5 from Jerry James  ---
Okay, looks good.  This package is 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/wildfly-arquillian.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/wildfly-arquillian-1.0.2-2.fc24.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #2)
> Issues
> ==
> 1. The spec file URL in the bug differs from the spec file inside the srpm.
>See the diff below.

Done

> 2. Some files in this package have an ASL 2.0 license notice, and some have
>an LGPLv2+ license notice.  (For an example of the latter, see
>common/src/main/java/org/jboss/as/arquillian/api/ServerSetup.java.)  I
> think
>the license should be "ASL 2.0 and LGPLv2+", with a note in the spec file
>describing the license breakdown.

Done

> 3. SHOULD: this is not the latest version.  Versions 1.1.0 and 2.0.0 have
> been
>released.

I am not interested for now to upgrade the package to 2.0.0.Final.
This release id used in wildfly 10.1.0.Final

> 4. SHOULD: package includes a non-upstream license file.

Upstream already fixed the problem with
https://github.com/wildfly/wildfly-arquillian/pull/60
but the patch available is not applicable for this release

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868



--- Comment #2 from Jerry James  ---
Issues
==
1. The spec file URL in the bug differs from the spec file inside the srpm.
   See the diff below.

2. Some files in this package have an ASL 2.0 license notice, and some have
   an LGPLv2+ license notice.  (For an example of the latter, see
   common/src/main/java/org/jboss/as/arquillian/api/ServerSetup.java.)  I think
   the license should be "ASL 2.0 and LGPLv2+", with a note in the spec file
   describing the license breakdown.

3. SHOULD: this is not the latest version.  Versions 1.1.0 and 2.0.0 have been
   released.

4. SHOULD: package includes a non-upstream license file.

Package Review
==

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

= 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
 Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
 found: "Apache (v2.0)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or
 generated". 3 files have unknown license.
[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.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) 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 

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868

Jerry James  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||loganje...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #1 from Jerry James  ---
I will take this 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1181081




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181081
[Bug 1181081] wildfly: Upgrade to 10.1.0.Final
-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1370868] Review Request: wildfly-arquillian - The Wildfly Arquillian Adaptor

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1370868

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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org