[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Fixed In Version||remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc20 Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2013-12-20 21:12:19 --- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System --- remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA --- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System --- remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc20 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 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. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 --- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs? --- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! New Package SCM Request === Package Name: remotetea Short Description: Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol Owners: gil Branches: f20 InitialCC: java-sig -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621
Will Benton changed:
What|Removed |Added
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Will Benton ---
Thanks, Gil!
BTW, I've filed the new JrpcgenSHA implementation upstream:
https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/remotetea/ticket/3
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.
[x]: 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
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[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 %doc.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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]: 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
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[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]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[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:
[x]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: D
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 --- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo --- Thanks! Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc19.src.rpm - use custom JrpcgenSHA, thanks to Will Benton wi...@redhat.com - fix license field - cleanup spec file -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 --- Comment #7 from Will Benton --- Created attachment 835375 --> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=835375&action=edit clean implementation of JrpcgenSHA.java Gil, this is a clean implementation of JrpcgenSHA.java that calls out to the Java standard library's implementation of SHA-1. It should otherwise be interface- and implemenation-compatible with the one that depended on bundled code. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 --- Comment #6 from Will Benton --- Thanks for making these changes, Gil. I've reviewed the code and it appears that removing the custom serialVersionUID values won't have much impact in this case (since the generated ones are strictly less descriptive than default ones). Please make two more quick changes and then I'll do a final review: 1. I believe that the license was GPLv2 with linking exception *and* LGPLv2, but since you've patched out the GPLv2 code, the license is just LGPLv2 now. 2. Please delete the line that patches COPYING.LIB altogether. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea-1.0.7-3.fc19.src.rpm - fix bundled libraries Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6277923 -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 --- Comment #4 from Will Benton --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) > is not the same class: > > * The original file gnu.java.security.provider.SHA.java has been > * renamed to reflect the many chances made to it. While the processing > * kernel has not been changed, the overall interface has. Especially > * some methods have been added which can hash several kinds of data > * types, as needed by the jrpcgen protocol compiler. > > this class has also been removed also from java-gcj-compat, and classpath > packages also (dead package) So in this case, it appears that we need a bundling exception because the processing kernel is copied from another project (even if the API changes): https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Modified_beyond_a_certain_extent However, based on these guidelines, an exception seems likely. -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Will Benton from comment #2) > There are a few issues to correct here: > > Generic: > [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets > other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging > Guidelines. > > NB: we CANNOT patch COPYING (as on line 41 of the spec) for legal > reasons; > please leave it as-is. See > > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address > > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later) > (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have > unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/wibenton/devel/review/991621-remotetea/licensecheck.txt > > The GPL-licensed code is from Classpath, which has a linking exception, > so it's > OK to say the whole package is LGPL-licensed. > > I've reported the address change upstream: > > https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/remotetea/ticket/2 > > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > > src/org/acplt/oncrpc/apps/jrpcgen/JrpcgenSHA.java is apparently > borrowed from Classpath > is not the same class: * The original file gnu.java.security.provider.SHA.java has been * renamed to reflect the many chances made to it. While the processing * kernel has not been changed, the overall interface has. Especially * some methods have been added which can hash several kinds of data * types, as needed by the jrpcgen protocol compiler. this class has also been removed also from java-gcj-compat, and classpath packages also (dead package) > [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > > see above re: patching COPYING > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > > There are several testing mains in remotetea/src/tests/; this package > should run them > already run with jrpcgen-test Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea-1.0.7-2.fc19.src.rpm - fix license field -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621
--- Comment #2 from Will Benton ---
There are a few issues to correct here:
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
NB: we CANNOT patch COPYING (as on line 41 of the spec) for legal
reasons;
please leave it as-is. See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)
(with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/wibenton/devel/review/991621-remotetea/licensecheck.txt
The GPL-licensed code is from Classpath, which has a linking exception, so
it's
OK to say the whole package is LGPL-licensed.
I've reported the address change upstream:
https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/remotetea/ticket/2
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
src/org/acplt/oncrpc/apps/jrpcgen/JrpcgenSHA.java is apparently borrowed
from Classpath
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 files.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: 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]: 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
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[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]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
or update to latest guidelines
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 Will Benton changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||wi...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|wi...@redhat.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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 Timothy St. Clair changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|NEW Assignee|tstcl...@redhat.com |nob...@fedoraproject.org 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 Timothy St. Clair changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||tstcl...@redhat.com Blocks||1010003 (bigdata-review) Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|tstcl...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Timothy St. Clair --- I can take this. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1010003 [Bug 1010003] bigdata-sig review-tracker -- 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 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 991621] Review Request: remotetea - Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=991621 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||991624 -- 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=xwkYV3H6r1&a=cc_unsubscribe ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
