[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||jackson-annotations-2.2.2-2 ||.fc19 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-08-03 20:09:56 --- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System --- jackson-annotations-2.2.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=QtQ9tt6otJ&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=MgtSBCD0pC&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=wKK4yZkGov&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 Simone Caronni changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||negativ...@gmail.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|negativ...@gmail.com Flags||fedora-review? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=2qOM3C5sjy&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165
--- Comment #1 from Simone Caronni ---
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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jackson-
annotations-javadoc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Documents/fedora/986165-jackson-
annotations/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 3 files.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[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 %doc.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).
Java:
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[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)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) 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 DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
Note: Found : Packager: Simone Caronni
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to inc
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165
Simone Caronni changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Simone Caronni ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #1)
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
> "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output
> of
> licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Documents/fedora/986165-jackson-
> annotations/licensecheck.txt
> [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
> file
> from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
Fixed in spec file; has it been reported upstream?
> [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
> Note: Found : Packager: Simone Caronni
That's my local .rpmmacros.
> jackson-annotations.noarch: W: self-obsoletion jackson2-annotations <= 2.2.2
> obsoletes jackson2-annotations = 2.2.2
Can you fix this? Spec file should read:
Obsoletes: jackson2-annotations < %{version}
Provides: jackson2-annotations = %{version}
As per:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
Please fix it before importing. Package approved.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=gHMPFtQdwg&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo ---
(In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #2)
> (In reply to Simone Caronni from comment #1)
> > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> > found:
> > "Unknown or generated". 34 files have unknown license. Detailed output
> > of
> > licensecheck in /home/slaanesh/Documents/fedora/986165-jackson-
> > annotations/licensecheck.txt
> > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
> > file
> > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> > [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
>
> Fixed in spec file; has it been reported upstream?
yes @ https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-annotations/issues/14
>
> > [!]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
> > Note: Found : Packager: Simone Caronni
>
> That's my local .rpmmacros.
>
> > jackson-annotations.noarch: W: self-obsoletion jackson2-annotations <= 2.2.2
> > obsoletes jackson2-annotations = 2.2.2
>
> Can you fix this? Spec file should read:
>
> Obsoletes: jackson2-annotations < %{version}
> Provides: jackson2-annotations = %{version}
done
>
> As per:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Renaming.
> 2FReplacing_Existing_Packages
>
> Please fix it before importing. Package approved.
thanks
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-annotations.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-annotations-2.2.2-2.fc19.src.rpm
New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: jackson-annotations
Short Description: Core annotations for Jackson data processor
Owners: gil
Branches: f19 f20
InitialCC: java-sig
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=3Il1jC55pT&a=cc_unsubscribe
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=TxLePJB6SD&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 --- Comment #4 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). f20 not branched yet. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=Yax6y1uUqg&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=lweq0xnOFk&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 Marek Goldmann changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||984554, 857102 --- Comment #5 from Marek Goldmann --- *** Bug 857080 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ponM6BBtzM&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 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. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=f3drkC58Js&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 --- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System --- jackson-annotations-2.2.2-2.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jackson-annotations-2.2.2-2.fc19 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=czBoSBqD7C&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 986165] Review Request: jackson-annotations - Core annotations for Jackson data processor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=986165 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System --- jackson-annotations-2.2.2-2.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=ISF4vw3i5p&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
