[Bug 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2020-10-05 16:34:46 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f28bd01371 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, 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 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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f28bd01371 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-f28bd01371` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f28bd01371 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates. -- 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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|MODIFIED --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- FEDORA-2020-f28bd01371 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-f28bd01371 -- 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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 --- Comment #6 from Jerry James --- Thank you Andy. That build failure on armhfp is a segfault in a futex call inside libpthread. That can't possibly be the fault of naga, which contains no native code. I'll cross my fingers and hope that doesn't happen on koji. -- 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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Andy Mender --- Alright, looks good. I trigged some builds just in case: COPR: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/andymenderunix/jmol/build/1689006/ (fails on armhfp for whatever reason) Koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=52471969 (clean) -- 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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James --- Upstream request for a license file: https://github.com/lerno/naga/issues/18 New URLs for the package with a license file included: Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/naga/naga.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/naga/naga-3.0-17.20150330git054a930.fc34.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 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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 --- Comment #3 from Andy Mender --- > The wording is a bit unclear there. It means that if the main package is > architecture-specific, then the javadoc package must explicitly be marked as > noarch. In the case where the main package is noarch, all subpackages are > implicitly noarch. Either way, you get a noarch javadoc package. Yes, I see now that the guideline about javadoc can be understood in a couple of ways: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_javadoc_installation Since the main package is noarch, I agree it's fine as it is now. > Well, I can ask. The last upstream activity was 5 1/2 years ago, so I'm not > optimistic about the result. In any case, all of the *.java files carry the > full license at the top. There is a couple of ways this can be handled covered here: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text The thing is that a license file should be added independently of whether the source files contain a license text/comment or not, since it's an aspect of packaging. As a packager you *can* add the text of the MIT license as an extra file to the package, for instance taking the license text included in one of the source files. Upstream inactivity is a different matter. I had a look at the GitHub timestamps again and most files were modified 6-12 years ago. I'd say the project is effectively dead, in which case responsibility for any bugfixes, improvements, etc. lies with the packager :(. For now please add an extra MIT license file with the %license macro and contact upstream if possible. -- 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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James ---
(In reply to Andy Mender from comment #1)
> I don't have much experience with packaging Java stuff, but I see this has
> been sitting around for a while so I want to help.
Thank you, Andy! I appreciate that. Sorry for the delay replying to this.
> The Java Packaging Guidelines mention also that a Requires on
> javapackages-filesystem should be added:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/
> #_buildrequires_and_requires
> > Requires: javapackages-filesystem
Right, it should have been javapackages-filesystem instead of
javapackages-tools. Fixed.
> The guidelines mention that the %{name}-javadoc subpackage should be
> explicitly declared as noarch:
> https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/
> #_javadoc_installation
The wording is a bit unclear there. It means that if the main package is
architecture-specific, then the javadoc package must explicitly be marked as
noarch. In the case where the main package is noarch, all subpackages are
implicitly noarch. Either way, you get a noarch javadoc package.
> No %license file added to the package and I see neither the old nor the new
> upstream have a license file in their source tree. Also, only the old
> upstream mentions that the license is MIT. Could you ask upstream to add a
> license file for the MIT license?
Well, I can ask. The last upstream activity was 5 1/2 years ago, so I'm not
optimistic about the result. In any case, all of the *.java files carry the
full license at the top.
> Also, a very minor thing, but you can use %{name} instead of "naga" :).
"naga" is 4 character; "%{name}" is 7 :-). I do use %{name} where it refers to
the package. I don't when referring to specific filenames.
New URLs:
Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/naga/naga.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/naga/naga-3.0-16.20150330git054a930.fc34.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
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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902
--- Comment #1 from Andy Mender ---
I don't have much experience with packaging Java stuff, but I see this has been
sitting around for a while so I want to help.
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51604491
> Requires: java-headless
> Requires: javapackages-tools
The Java Packaging Guidelines mention also that a Requires on
javapackages-filesystem should be added:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_buildrequires_and_requires
> Requires: javapackages-filesystem
> %package javadoc
> Summary:Javadocs for %{name}
> Requires: javapackages-tools
The guidelines mention that the %{name}-javadoc subpackage should be explicitly
declared as noarch:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_javadoc_installation
> %files
> %doc Echoserver.md Eventmachine.md Gotchas.md PacketReader.md README.md
> %{_javadir}/naga.jar
> %{_javadir}/naga-3_0.jar
No %license file added to the package and I see neither the old nor the new
upstream have a license file in their source tree. Also, only the old upstream
mentions that the license is MIT. Could you ask upstream to add a license file
for the MIT license?
Also, a very minor thing, but you can use %{name} instead of "naga" :).
The rest of the review:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
===
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java
to get additional checks
Review: The plugin was orphaned 2+ years ago.
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/naga
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
Review: it's fine, since it's an unretirement request.
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 27 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/naga/naga/licensecheck.txt
Review: Presumably yes.
[!]: 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
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
Review: Yes, but as mentioned before, instances of "naga"
can be replaced with %{name}
[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 30720 bytes in 5 files.
Review: naga-javadoc added as subpackage.
[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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make inst
[Bug 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|andymenderu...@gmail.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 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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 Andy Mender changed: What|Removed |Added CC||andymenderu...@gmail.com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value -- 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 1878902] Review Request: naga - Simplified Java NIO asynchronous sockets
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 Jerry James changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1878903 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878903 [Bug 1878903] Review Request: jmol - Java viewer for chemical structures in 3D -- 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
