[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #17 from Fedora Update System  ---
jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #16 from Fedora Update System  ---
jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
   Fixed In Version||2.5.0-1.fc22
 Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE
Last Closed||2015-09-09 19:19:57



-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #14 from Fedora Update System  ---
jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum
--enablerepo=updates-testing update jackson-datatype-joda'. You can provide
feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14586

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #15 from Fedora Update System  ---
jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing
repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug
report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum
--enablerepo=updates-testing update jackson-datatype-joda'. You can provide
feedback for this update here:
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14584

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301

Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|MODIFIED



-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14584

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #11 from Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301

Jon Ciesla limburg...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+



-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System upda...@fedoraproject.org ---
jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-14586

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301

Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||loganje...@gmail.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|loganje...@gmail.com
  Flags||fedora-review?



--- Comment #5 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
I will take this review.

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
list of packages which should be updated
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/fasterxml-oss-parent
http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/?q=jackson

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
(In reply to Jerry James from comment #6)
 The only issue I see is that the latest version (2.6.1) is not packaged. 
 Can it be used, or is there a reason why 2.5.0 is necessary?
 
 On a related note, it looks like 2.5.4 might fix the ComparisonFailure noted
 in %prep.  If 2.6.x is not feasible, can 2.5.4 be used at least?

I prefer use this release for the moment, until will have upgraded all jackson
2 packages, for avoid apis breakage

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301

Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #9 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
Okay, just wanted to be sure there was a reason.  This package is 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
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301

gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-cvs?



--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
===
Package Name: jackson-datatype-joda
Short Description: Add-on module for Jackson to support Joda data-types
Upstream URL: http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonModuleJoda
Owners: gil
Branches: f22 f23
InitialCC: java-sig

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganje...@gmail.com ---
The only issue I see is that the latest version (2.6.1) is not packaged.  Can
it be used, or is there a reason why 2.5.0 is necessary?

On a related note, it looks like 2.5.4 might fix the ComparisonFailure noted in
%prep.  If 2.6.x is not feasible, can 2.5.4 be used at least?


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.
[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.
[-]: 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.
 Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 3 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate 

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda.spec
SRPM URL:
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc22.src.rpm

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda.spec
SRPM URL:
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda-2.5.0-1.fc20.src.rpm

- update to 2.5.0

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8786952

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda.spec
SRPM URL:
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda-2.4.2-1.fc19.src.rpm

- update to 2.4.2

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8414508

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review

[Bug 1039301] Review Request: jackson-datatype-joda - Extension module to properly support full datatype set of Joda date-time library

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1039301



--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo punto...@libero.it ---
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda.spec
SRPM URL:
http://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-joda-2.4.1-1.fc19.src.rpm

- update to 2.4.1

-- 
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@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review