[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ON_QA |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-10-10 13:42:35 --- Comment #10 from Fedora Update System --- osgi-compendium-6.0.0-1.fc25, osgi-core-6.0.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|ON_QA --- Comment #9 from Fedora Update System --- osgi-compendium-6.0.0-1.fc25, osgi-core-6.0.0-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 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-2016-8cd8b793dd -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 --- Comment #8 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/osgi-core -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 Michael Simacek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|182235 (FE-Legal) | --- Comment #7 from Michael Simacek --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5) > Please, add Richard Fontana email as an attachment The email body is in comment #1. Thank you for the review. Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo --- as for https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271193#c14 "Lifting FE-Legal" -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- Please, add Richard Fontana email as an attachment -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 gil cattaneo 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 -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 --- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo --- Blocker: [?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. Waiting for Fedora Legal resolution [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. As above Package is approved, but for the inclusion in Fedora we need A FE-Legal response -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[?]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
Waiting for Fedora Legal resolution
[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". 22 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1381892-osgi-
core/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
As above
[-]: 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.
[-]: 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: 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 p
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||182235 (FE-Legal) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=182235 [Bug 182235] Fedora Legal Tracker -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 --- Comment #2 from Michael Simacek --- Removed the alias, because it conflicts with felix and breaks stuff. Spec URL: https://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/osgi-core.spec SRPM URL: https://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/osgi-core-6.0.0-2.fc24.src.rpm Scratch build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15952809 -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 Michael Simacek changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1271193 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1271193 [Bug 1271193] Review Request: osgi-compendium - Interfaces and Classes for use in compiling OSGi bundles -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1381892] Review Request: osgi-core - OSGi Core API
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1381892 --- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek --- There have been some doubts about the licensing of the artifact, due to the fact that in order to download it from upstream web page, it requires the user to agree to a non-free OSGi specification license. The following is a legal explanation of why this shouldn't be an obstacle for including it in Fedora, kindly provided by Richard Fontana (via email): The source files in the JAR, containing Apache License 2.0 notices, are free software, and should be acceptable for packaging in Fedora and RHEL. There is definitely something confusing here: the spec license would seem to apply to the JAR contents as well as the pdf containing the specification. However, the spec license has to be read in light of the fact that the same group granting the spec license is also the group that has explicitly placed those source files under the Apache License 2.0. I read the spec license as applying in some sense to the specification document but not applying to any source files licensed by the OSGi Alliance under the Apache License. Specifically, the spec license says: You are not authorized to create any derivative work of the Specification. However, to the extent that an implementation of the Specification would necessarily be a derivative work of the Specification, OSGi also grants you a perpetual, non-exclusive, worldwide, fully paid-up, royalty free, limited license (without the right to sublicense) under any applicable copyrights, to create and/or distribute an implementation of the Specification that: (i) fully implements the Specification including all its required interfaces and functionality; (ii) does not modify, subset, superset or otherwise extend the OSGi Name Space, or include any public or protected packages, classes, Java interfaces, fields or methods within the OSGi Name Space other than those required and authorized by the Specification. An implementation that does not satisfy limitations (i)-(ii) is not considered an implementation of the Specification, does not receive the benefits of this license, and must not be described as an implementation of the Specification. The Apache License on the other hand explicitly permits creation of derivative works even if such derivative works fall outside the conditions here. I.e., one could take the source files in the JAR and use it to fork the OSGi standard, or to create a nonconformant implementation of the OSGi standard. Essentially, the Apache License 2.0 supersedes the spec license as far as the source files in the JAR are concerned. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
