[Bug 987558] Review Request: geronimo-txmanager - Geronimo Transaction Manager

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=987558



--- Comment #2 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> ---
Fedora 19 is EOL, so '%if %{?fedora} > 20' conditional could be removed.

I'd suggest adding this to have less directories:
# Use the same directory of the main package for subpackage licence and docs
%global _docdir_fmt %{name}

Everything looks fine. I have one question: is the separate geronimo-txmanager
binary package needed? It seems as if it could be folded into
geronimo-transaction.

===== 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /var/tmp/987558-geronimo-txmanager/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[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]: 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)

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 DO 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:
[-]: 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.

     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in geronimo-
     connector , geronimo-transaction , geronimo-txmanager-javadoc
Not needed.

[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Could be added.

[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Java:
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: geronimo-txmanager-3.1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          geronimo-connector-3.1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          geronimo-transaction-3.1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          geronimo-txmanager-javadoc-3.1.1-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          geronimo-txmanager-3.1.1-1.fc23.src.rpm
geronimo-txmanager.noarch: W: no-documentation
geronimo-connector.noarch: W: no-documentation
geronimo-transaction.noarch: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
geronimo-transaction (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-jta_1.1_spec)
    mvn(org.jboss.spec.javax.resource:jboss-connector-api_1.7_spec)

geronimo-connector (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-transaction)
    mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-validation_1.0_spec)
    mvn(org.jboss.spec.javax.resource:jboss-connector-api_1.7_spec)

geronimo-txmanager (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:specs:pom:)

geronimo-txmanager-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
geronimo-transaction:
    geronimo-transaction
    mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-transaction)
    mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-transaction:pom:)
    osgi(org.apache.geronimo.components.geronimo-transaction)

geronimo-connector:
    geronimo-connector
    mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-connector)
    mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-connector:pom:)
    osgi(org.apache.geronimo.components.geronimo-connector)

geronimo-txmanager:
    geronimo-txmanager
    mvn(org.apache.geronimo.components:geronimo-txmanager-parent:pom:)

geronimo-txmanager-javadoc:
    geronimo-txmanager-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/apache/geronimo-txmanager/archive/geronimo-txmanager-parent-3.1.1.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
25b689ee7302cab95340e24fd03317ae2e9c25817064a1ec70fcb0ac03144f95
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
25b689ee7302cab95340e24fd03317ae2e9c25817064a1ec70fcb0ac03144f95


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 987558
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]