https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287466 Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks| |1262240 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262240 [Bug 1262240] gradle: Enable Zinc compiler support -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287466 Michael Simacek <msimacek(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Michael Simacek <msimacek(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - There are bundled binaries in the source - dist folder contains linux, mac and windows executables. Also nailgun client source is bundled. It's obvious that it's not used, but I'd still like to see it removed in prep. - There should be some comment for the patch, it's not obvious what the patch does and whether it's Fedora specific ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 119 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/msimacek/reviews/1287466-zinc/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 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 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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]: 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: [-]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: zinc-0.3.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm zinc-0.3.1-1.fc24.src.rpm zinc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scala -> Scala, scalar, scale zinc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sbt's -> set's, sot's, Sb's zinc.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) scala -> Scala, scalar, scale zinc.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sbt's -> set's, sot's, Sb's 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- zinc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(org.scala-lang:scala-library) mvn(org.scala-sbt:incremental-compiler) Provides -------- zinc: mvn(com.typesafe.zinc:zinc) mvn(com.typesafe.zinc:zinc:pom:) zinc Source checksums ---------------- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 https://github.com/typesafehub/zinc/archive/v0.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a58597207066bbadb4e95bd4ea0fec24a4924a0c9cb22f64ff1c8a839308435a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a58597207066bbadb4e95bd4ea0fec24a4924a0c9cb22f64ff1c8a839308435a http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/com/typesafe/zinc/zinc/0.3.1/zinc-0.3.1.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7486cf1597c429c2fd00d22b620bed29f22aca06b50f1e4c0e0466a80d8b6440 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7486cf1597c429c2fd00d22b620bed29f22aca06b50f1e4c0e0466a80d8b6440 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1287466 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 The mentioned issues are minor, you can fix them during the import. APPROVED -- 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

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1287466 Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk(a)redhat.com&gt; changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE Last Closed| |2015-12-02 10:55:43 --- Comment #4 from Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk(a)redhat.com&gt; --- Built for rawhide and F23: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12030682 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12030685 Closing. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- 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