[Bug 1898312] Review Request: jakarta-json - Jakarta JSON Processing

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1898312

Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |POST
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #4 from Fabio Valentini <decathorpe@xxxxxxxxx> ---
1) You can mark maven packages to not get installed with "%mvn_package", so you
don't have to remove them manually:
Here's an example in jakarta-el:
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jakarta-el/blob/master/f/jakarta-el.spec#_71

2) According to the "renaming packages" documentation, the obsoleted NVRs
should be < 1.0.4-12, because 1.0.4-11 was the last available NVR of jsonp and
jsonp-javadoc.

3) There are weird Requires for jakarta-json:

    mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin)
    mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin)
    mvn(org.codehaus.mojo:build-helper-maven-plugin)

Looks like the top-level maven project is a "parent POM", so that should be
fine.

1+2 are not blocking issues, and 3) is just a heads-up for you (to check
whether I am reading this right).
Please fix 1+2 before importing the package. PACKAGE APPROVED, full
fedora-review checklist attached below.



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.
[-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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
[-]: 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]: 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 %license.
[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]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

===== 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[-]: 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.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

===== 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: jakarta-json-1.1.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jakarta-json-api-1.1.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jakarta-json-impl-1.1.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jakarta-json-jaxrs-1.1.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jakarta-json-jaxrs-1x-1.1.6-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jakarta-json-1.1.6-1.fc34.src.rpm
jakarta-json.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided jsonp-javadoc
jakarta-json-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
jakarta-json-impl.noarch: W: no-documentation
jakarta-json-jaxrs.noarch: W: no-documentation
jakarta-json-jaxrs-1x.noarch: W: no-documentation
6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
jakarta-json-jaxrs.noarch: W: no-documentation
jakarta-json-api.noarch: W: no-documentation
jakarta-json-jaxrs-1x.noarch: W: no-documentation
jakarta-json-impl.noarch: W: no-documentation
jakarta-json.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided jsonp-javadoc
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/eclipse-ee4j/jsonp/archive/1.1-1.1.6-RELEASE.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
41690f441a230d84f25b072c3f5fdbc31cf9d865745070299e73bf407dbeec36
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
41690f441a230d84f25b072c3f5fdbc31cf9d865745070299e73bf407dbeec36


Requires
--------
jakarta-json (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem
    mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin)
    mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin)
    mvn(org.codehaus.mojo:build-helper-maven-plugin)

jakarta-json-api (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jakarta-json
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem

jakarta-json-impl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jakarta-json
    jakarta-json-api
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem

jakarta-json-jaxrs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jakarta-json
    jakarta-json-api
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem
    mvn(jakarta.annotation:jakarta.annotation-api)
    mvn(jakarta.ws.rs:jakarta.ws.rs-api)

jakarta-json-jaxrs-1x (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jakarta-json
    jakarta-json-api
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem
    mvn(jakarta.annotation:jakarta.annotation-api)
    mvn(jakarta.ws.rs:jakarta.ws.rs-api)



Provides
--------
jakarta-json:
    jakarta-json
    jsonp
    mvn(org.glassfish:json:pom:)

jakarta-json-api:
    jakarta-json-api
    mvn(jakarta.json:jakarta.json-api)
    mvn(jakarta.json:jakarta.json-api:pom:)
    mvn(javax.json:javax.json-api)
    mvn(javax.json:javax.json-api:pom:)
    osgi(jakarta.json-api)

jakarta-json-impl:
    jakarta-json-impl
    mvn(org.glassfish:jakarta.json)
    mvn(org.glassfish:jakarta.json:pom:)
    mvn(org.glassfish:javax.json)
    mvn(org.glassfish:javax.json:pom:)
    osgi(org.glassfish.jakarta.json)

jakarta-json-jaxrs:
    jakarta-json-jaxrs
    mvn(org.glassfish:jsonp-jaxrs)
    mvn(org.glassfish:jsonp-jaxrs:pom:)
    osgi(org.glassfish.jsonp-jaxrs)

jakarta-json-jaxrs-1x:
    jakarta-json-jaxrs-1x
    mvn(org.glassfish:jsonp-jaxrs-1x)
    mvn(org.glassfish:jsonp-jaxrs-1x:pom:)
    osgi(org.glassfish.jsonp-jaxrs-1x)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1898312 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -o
--enablerepo local
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Ocaml, Haskell, fonts, PHP, Python, R, SugarActivity,
Perl
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH


-- 
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@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux