[Bug 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | -- 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2012-07-26 18:28:50 --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- jboss-reflect-2.0.2-2.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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- jboss-reflect-2.0.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- jboss-reflect-2.0.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jboss-reflect-2.0.2-2.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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|POST|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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 --- Comment #9 from Gerard Ryan --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: jboss-reflect Short Description: JBoss Reflection Owners: galileo Branches: f17 InitialCC: -- 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404
Mikolaj Izdebski changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #8 from Mikolaj Izdebski ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[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.
[x]: 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 Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[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.
[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.
[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.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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 Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint jboss-reflect-2.0.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
jboss-reflect.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
jboss-reflect.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint jboss-reflect-2.0.2-2.fc18.src.rpm
jboss-reflect.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
jboss-reflect.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-reflect-2.0.2.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint jboss-reflect-javadoc-2.0.2-2.fc18.noarch.rpm
jboss-reflect-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
jboss-reflect-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
These warnings can be ignored.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: 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).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patc
[Bug 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 --- Comment #7 from Gerard Ryan --- Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.0.2-2/jboss-reflect.spec SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.0.2-2/jboss-reflect-2.0.2-2.fc17.src.rpm > org.apache.maven.surefire:surefire-junit4 seems to be mising. added to BR > The license tag should therefore be just "LGPLv2+". Done. Thanks! -- 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 --- Comment #6 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- 2 issues found: [!]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. org.apache.maven.surefire:surefire-junit4 seems to be mising. [!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License field states "LGPLv2+ and BSD", but there is nothing BSD-licensed. The license tag should therefore be just "LGPLv2+". -- 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 --- Comment #5 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- Re-reviewing 2.0.2.GA from scratch. -- 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||needinfo?(ger...@ryan.lt) Flags|needinfo?(ger...@ryan.lt) | --- Comment #4 from Gerard Ryan --- I tried removing the bundled subset of objectweb-asm, and getting it to rely on the Fedora packaged objectweb-asm, but it didn't work. It seems that there's some stuff in there that never made it upstream. The problem code was introduced in the 2.2.0.Alpha6 tag, but the jbossxb dependency on jboss-reflect is based on the 2.0.2.GA tag. The previous stable release before 2.2.0.Alpha6 was 2.0.4.GA. I've managed to build both 2.2.0.Alpha5, and 2.0.2.GA (2.0.4.GA depends on some other old stuff that I can't even find). Since 2.2.0.Alpha5 is exactly that: a fifth alpha of nine alpha versions; I'm first going to propose 2.0.2.GA. jbossxb builds fine against it. If you think 2.2.0.Alpha5 would be preferable, let me know. Thanks! Spec URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.0.2-1/jboss-reflect.spec SRPM URL: http://galileo.fedorapeople.org/jboss-reflect/2.0.2-1/jboss-reflect-2.0.2-1.fc17.src.rpm -- 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404
--- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski ---
Package Review
==
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
Generic
[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.
[x]: 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 Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[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.
[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.
[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.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[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 Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.
rpmlint jboss-reflect-2.2.1-1.fc18.src.rpm
jboss-reflect.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
jboss-reflect.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jboss-reflect-2.2.1.tar.xz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint jboss-reflect-2.2.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
jboss-reflect.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP Error 403:
Forbidden
jboss-reflect.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
rpmlint jboss-reflect-javadoc-2.2.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
jboss-reflect-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
jboss-reflect-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org HTTP
Error 403: Forbidden
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
These warnings can be ignored.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: 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).
[x]: 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 / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-
[Bug 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Mikolaj Izdebski changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mizde...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mizde...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski --- I am taking this 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Depends On|836400 | --- Comment #1 from Gerard Ryan --- I've added some additional BuildRequires that I just noticed when I tried a scratch build. Builds successfully in koji now. -- 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||837726 -- 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||836403 -- 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 836404] Review Request: jboss-reflect - JBoss Reflection
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=836404 Gerard Ryan changed: What|Removed |Added Depends On||836400 -- 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
