https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
Bug ID: 1270317 Summary: Review Request: lz4-java - LZ4 compression for Java Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Component: Package Review Severity: medium Priority: medium Assignee: nobody@fedoraproject.org Reporter: puntogil@libero.it QA Contact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/lz4-java.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/lz4-java-1.3.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: LZ4 compression for Java, based on Yann Collet's work. This library provides access to two compression methods that both generate a valid LZ4 stream:
* fast scan (LZ4): ° low memory footprint (~ 16 KB), ° very fast (fast scan with skipping heuristics in case the input looks incompressible), ° reasonable compression ratio (depending on the redundancy of the input). * high compression (LZ4 HC): ° medium memory footprint (~ 256 KB), ° rather slow (~ 10 times slower than LZ4), ° good compression ratio (depending on the size and the redundancy of the input).
The streams produced by those 2 compression algorithms use the same compression format, are very fast to decompress and can be decompressed by the same decompressor instance
Fedora Account System Username: gil
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11387051
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |652183 (FE-JAVASIG)
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #1 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- gil's scratch build of lz4-java-1.3.0-1.fc22.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=11387051
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/lz4-java.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/lz4-java-1.3.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1282063
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063 [Bug 1282063] Review Request: xxhsum - Extremely fast hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |trepik@redhat.com Assignee|nobody@fedoraproject.org |trepik@redhat.com
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR)
--- Comment #3 from Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com --- *** Bug 1303866 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841 (FE-NEEDSPONSOR) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=177841 [Bug 177841] Tracker: Review requests from new Fedora packagers who need a sponsor
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #4 from Upstream Release Monitoring upstream-release-monitoring@fedoraproject.org --- gil's scratch build of lz4-java-1.3.0-1.fc23.src.rpm for rawhide completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12945998
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #5 from Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com --- rmplint results
lz4-java.x86_64: E: no-binary
add BuildArchitectures: noarch to the SPEC file
lz4-java.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share Possibly could just be ignored
lz4-java.src:42: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libxxhash)
include a version
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #5)
rmplint results
lz4-java.x86_64: E: no-binary
add BuildArchitectures: noarch to the SPEC file
No, this will never happen
lz4-java.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share Possibly could just be ignored
The artifact is installed in /usr/lib/java (%{_jnidir}) see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_J...
lz4-java.src:42: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libxxhash)
include a version
is really necessary? i would remove libxxhash stuff when RHBZ#1282063 will be solved
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it ---
(In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #5)
rmplint results lz4-java.src:42: W: unversioned-explicit-provides bundled(libxxhash)
include a version
Done
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/lz4-java.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/lz4-java-1.3.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #8 from Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com --- Now I know why:
lz4-java.x86_64: E: no-binary
add BuildArchitectures: noarch to the SPEC file
No, this will never happen lz4-java.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share Possibly could just be ignored
The artifact is installed in /usr/lib/java (%{_jnidir})
The package is really good, only thing is with that bundled xxhash, I don't know if it could be removed later. Here is the review:
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[?]: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Some non-blockers - no need to remove .jar .class files there are not any - a typo in the comment on %check section: wast > waste - no ${libdir} in build.xml ( sed -i 's|${libdir}|%{_libdir}|' build.xml) - patches should link to upstream bugs/comments/lists
===== 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: "BSD (2 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 8 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/makerpm/rev/lz4-java/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 20480 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]: 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]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [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 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 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 metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in lz4 -java-javadoc Javadoc package should not depend on its base package and vice versa. [?]: 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. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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]: 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]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: lz4-java subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually Use of JNI [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched.
Rpmlint ------- Checking: lz4-java-1.3.0-1.fc24.x86_64.rpm lz4-java-javadoc-1.3.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm lz4-java-1.3.0-1.fc24.src.rpm lz4-java.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US incompressible -> in compressible, in-compressible, incomprehensible lz4-java.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompressor -> decompress or, decompress-or, decompress lz4-java.x86_64: E: no-binary lz4-java.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib lz4-java.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US incompressible -> in compressible, in-compressible, incomprehensible lz4-java.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompressor -> decompress or, decompress-or, decompress 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 5 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory lz4-java.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US incompressible -> in compressible, in-compressible, incomprehensible lz4-java.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompressor -> decompress or, decompress-or, decompress lz4-java.x86_64: E: no-binary lz4-java.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings.
Requires -------- lz4-java-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils
lz4-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils lz4(x86-64)
Provides -------- lz4-java-javadoc: lz4-java-javadoc
lz4-java: bundled(libxxhash) lz4-java lz4-java(x86-64) mvn(net.jpountz.lz4:lz4) mvn(net.jpountz.lz4:lz4:pom:) osgi(lz4-java)
Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/jpountz/lz4-java/archive/1.3.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7fdfe31304a50a830f4f2e8207cdfe58126270e2f24d7c318540e2b263bead78 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7fdfe31304a50a830f4f2e8207cdfe58126270e2f24d7c318540e2b263bead78
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -P Java,C/C++:off -D EXARCH --rpm-spec -n /home/makerpm/rpmbuild/SRPMS/lz4-java-1.3.0-1.fc23.src.rpm 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: DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #8)
Now I know why:
lz4-java.x86_64: E: no-binary
add BuildArchitectures: noarch to the SPEC file
No, this will never happen
the build depends on the architecture of the system according to the library used (lz4), it is not possible that both noarch
lz4-java.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share Possibly could just be ignored
The artifact is installed in /usr/lib/java (%{_jnidir})
see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_J... and it is all that there is to say / write
The package is really good, only thing is with that bundled xxhash, I don't know if it could be removed later. Here is the review:
see https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries&a...
Package Review
[?]: Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files (not just symlinks) in any of the dynamic linker's default paths, must call ldconfig in %post and %postun.
Is no necessary for a JNI library
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Is no MORE necessary
Some non-blockers
- no need to remove .jar .class files there are not any
Done
- a typo in the comment on %check section: wast > waste
Done
- no ${libdir} in build.xml ( sed -i 's|${libdir}|%{_libdir}|' build.xml)
Seriously? What guidelines do you use? We use only: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/
- patches should link to upstream bugs/comments/lists
Is no necessary, comments are available and the patches are specific only for Fedora
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
See above
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures.
It is already covered
Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: lz4-java subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually Use of JNI
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #10 from Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9)
see https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging: No_Bundled_Libraries&oldid=406058#Requirement_if_you_bundle
But you still need the FPC exception right?
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #10)
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9)
see https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging: No_Bundled_Libraries&oldid=406058#Requirement_if_you_bundle
But you still need the FPC exception right?
The guideline was recently changed ... Open FPC ticket (Bundled Library Exception) https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/603
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- FPC ticket was closed: Resolution: nothingtodo " Comment:
FPC no longer has anything to do with bundling. Please see the current guidelines:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Bundling_and_Duplication...
Please make sure to add the necessary "Provides: bundled(xxHash) = version" to your package. "
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #13 from Tomas Repik trepik@redhat.com --- All right, I've already (accidentally) set the fedora-review flag to "+" so the package is ready to proceed to next phase. I would just include the link to the FPC ticket in the spec file anyway. Thank you.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla limburgher@gmail.com --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/lz4-java
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lz4-java-1.3.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7c436d5d72
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |MODIFIED
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|MODIFIED |ON_QA
--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lz4-java-1.3.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-7c436d5d72
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org --- lz4-java-1.3.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
Fedora Update System updates@fedoraproject.org changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed| |2016-03-05 01:23:17
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317
Jeremy Newton alexjnewt@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Depends On| |1503461
Referenced Bugs:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1503461 [Bug 1503461] Review Request: xxhash - Extremely fast hash algorithm
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1270317 Bug 1270317 depends on bug 1282063, which changed state.
Bug 1282063 Summary: Review Request: xxhsum - Extremely fast hash algorithm https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1282063
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution|--- |DUPLICATE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
bugzilla＠redhat.com -
Red Hat Bugzilla