[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gentlyweb-utils-1.5-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-09-08 22:55:41 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gentlyweb-utils-1.5-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gentlyweb-utils/1/gentlyweb-utils.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gentlyweb-utils/1/gentlyweb-utils-1.5-2.fc16.src.rpm - changed SOURCE0 no more available at http://gentlyweb-utils.sourcearchive.com/downloads/1.5-1 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831
--- Comment #5 from Matt Spaulding mspauldin...@gmail.com ---
Sebastian,
Very good review! Here is my official one. Mostly a rehash of what you have
already stated.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[-]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0)
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[!]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
Note: Typo addressed below.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source0 (gentlyWEB-src-utils-1.1.tar.gz)
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 Matt Spaulding mspauldin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mspauldin...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gentlyweb-utils Short Description: Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O Owners: gil Branches: f17 f18 InitialCC: java-sig -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 --- Comment #7 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gentlyweb-utils-1.5-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gentlyweb-utils-1.5-2.fc18 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gentlyweb-utils-1.5-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gentlyweb-utils-1.5-2.fc17 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org --- gentlyweb-utils-1.5-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 Matt Spaulding mspauldin...@gmail.com changed: What|Removed |Added CC||mspauldin...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Matt Spaulding mspauldin...@gmail.com --- Looks like the upstream source for this package does not exist anymore. The website is there, but the tarball cannot be downloaded. I'm not sure how this changes things in regards to getting it into the distro. It might be that it's provided somewhere else now, though I haven't been able to find it. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it --- hi Matt, there is not any difference in the sources could be used both ... but to simplify would keep the current version field (1.5) and use the second file ... how do you feel? http://ftp.de.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/gentlyweb-utils/gentlyweb-utils_1.5.orig.tar.gz http://sourceforge.net/projects/josql/files/josql/stable-2.2/gentlyWEB-src-utils-1.1.tar.gz thanks regards -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831
--- Comment #3 from Sebastian Dyroff b...@dyroff.org ---
I am not a package maintainer and I am still looking for a sponsor.
I used gentlyweb-utils_1.5.orig.tar.gz for the review. Hope that the upstream
file with the right sha256sum will become available again.
I will annotate the checks that i have not marked as pass in the review below.
[!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
see Matts' comment. It seem that i could download a file from upstream, but it
was not exactly the same.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
I think this is not applicable. I found no recommended compiler flag for java.
The package does not set java compiler flags.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
No GUI app.
[?]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Some checks did not pass.
[-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
No subpackages
[-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
I don't know if it requires jpackage-utils. Maybe i missed something.
[-]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
It is a library. It contains the class files and so on. Nothing really to test
here.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
I found version 2.2 is already released.
[?]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
I am not firm with maven. So i can't tell. It has a depmap call. It seems as if
does not rely on other java code. The depmap doesn't list any other package.
[!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
There are no tests, upstream source doesn't include any test-cases.
This is the output of fedora-review including my manual checks.
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[?]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
Apache (v2.0) For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /tmp/822831
-gentlyweb-utils/licensecheck.txt
[-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not
[Bug 822831] Review Request: gentlyweb-utils - Java utility library used by JoSQL for I/O
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |gentlyweb-utils - java |gentlyweb-utils - Java |utility library used by |utility library used by |josql |JoSQL for I/O -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
