[Bug 2254309] Review Request: httpcomponents-core4 - Set of low level Java HTTP transport components for HTTP services

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

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254309

Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
              Flags|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+



--- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> ---
No issues noted.  This package is APPROVED.  If you are able to do so, I would
appreciate a review for any package on this list:
https://discussion.fedoraproject.org/t/soplex-and-scip/98387.  If you are not
able, no worries.

Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated

===== 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 License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 19
     files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by:
     /usr/share/java/httpcomponents(httpcomponents-client, httpcomponents-
     core), /usr/share/maven-poms/httpcomponents(httpcomponents-client,
     httpcomponents-core)

     This is expected.

[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.

     Well, it does require one, but that is true for all Java packages.

[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 84114 bytes in 2 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools
     (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: javapackages-tools
     (jpackage-utils)
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) 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 .mfiles file list 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.

     Not really, but tests are run during the build.

[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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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: httpcomponents-core4-4.4.16-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          httpcomponents-core4-javadoc-4.4.16-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          httpcomponents-core4-4.4.16-1.fc40.src.rpm
================================================ rpmlint session starts
================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp6dgc_sqe')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

httpcomponents-core4.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch1:
0001-Port-to-mockito-2.patch
httpcomponents-core4.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch2:
0002-Port-to-Mockito-5.patch

This is bogus.  It appears to be a fedora-review bug.

httpcomponents-core4-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99%
================= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0
badness; has taken 0.5 s =================




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 2

httpcomponents-core4-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99%
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.3 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/httpcomponents/httpcomponents-core/4.4.16/httpcomponents-core-4.4.16-source-release.zip
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
bf5a518e781459385baf51ce3e5fee37f97ff80cb8ad7195ae8670f6dfc5ad91
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
bf5a518e781459385baf51ce3e5fee37f97ff80cb8ad7195ae8670f6dfc5ad91


Requires
--------
httpcomponents-core4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (java-headless or java-21-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless
or java-1.8.0-headless)
    javapackages-filesystem

httpcomponents-core4-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
httpcomponents-core4:
    httpcomponents-core4
    mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpcomponents-core:pom:)
    mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpcore)
    mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpcore-nio)
    mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpcore-nio:pom:)
    mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpcore:pom:)
    osgi(org.apache.httpcomponents.httpcore)
    osgi(org.apache.httpcomponents.httpcore-nio)

httpcomponents-core4-javadoc:
    httpcomponents-core4-javadoc



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2254309 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Java, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: SugarActivity, Perl, Python, Ruby, PHP, C/C++, R, Haskell,
Ocaml, fonts
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH


-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
You are on the CC list for the bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2254309

Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202254309%23c3
--
_______________________________________________
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
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue




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

  Powered by Linux