[Bug 1868044] Review Request: jaxb-istack-commons - iStack Common Utility Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868044
Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |POST
CC||zebo...@gmail.com
Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|zebo...@gmail.com
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
Flags||fedora-review+
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
- Please bump to 4.0.0
Package approved.
Package Review
==
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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/jaxb-istack-commons/review-
jaxb-istack-commons/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/java/istack-
commons(istack-commons-maven-plugin, import-properties-plugin, istack-
commons-soimp, istack-commons-runtime, istack-commons-buildtools,
istack-commons-tools, istack-commons-test), /usr/share/maven-
poms/istack-commons(istack-commons-maven-plugin, import-properties-
plugin, istack-commons-soimp, istack-commons, istack-commons-runtime,
istack-commons-buildtools, istack-commons-tools, istack-commons-test)
[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 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
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: 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 istack-
commons-maven-plugin , import-prope
[Bug 1868044] Review Request: jaxb-istack-commons - iStack Common Utility Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868044 --- Comment #2 from Fabio Valentini --- Thank you for the review! I have not updated to 4.0.0 yet since that's not "ready for public consumption" and has not been released to maven central yet: https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.sun.istack/istack-commons > [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and > Provides are present. Could you please check this? Since this *is* a rename request after all :) -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868044] Review Request: jaxb-istack-commons - iStack Common Utility Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868044
--- Comment #3 from Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 ---
My bad I didn't catch that.
%global obs_vr 3.0.11-2
# package renamed in fedora 33, remove in fedora 35
Provides: istack-commons = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes: istack-commons < %{obs_vr}
# javadoc subpackage is currently not built
Obsoletes: istack-commons-javadoc < %{obs_vr}
LGTM: obs_vr is one release above istack-commons, and it provides
%{version}-%{release} for the current package.
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives:
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868044] Review Request: jaxb-istack-commons - iStack Common Utility Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868044 --- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini --- No problem, thanks for checking! https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27951 https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27952 -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868044] Review Request: jaxb-istack-commons - iStack Common Utility Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868044 --- Comment #5 from Gwyn Ciesla --- (fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jaxb-istack-commons -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1868044] Review Request: jaxb-istack-commons - iStack Common Utility Code
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1868044 Fabio Valentini changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2020-08-27 21:23:39 --- Comment #6 from Fabio Valentini --- Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601955 And for fedora 33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601956 I submitted an update and a buildroot override for f33 and retired the obsoleted package in both these branches. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
