[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1181081




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1181081
[Bug 1181081] wildfly: Upgrade to 10.1.0.Final
-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed||2016-07-24 16:21:15



-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118



--- Comment #8 from Fedora Update System  ---
protoparser-3.1.5-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|MODIFIED|ON_QA



--- Comment #7 from Fedora Update System  ---
protoparser-3.1.5-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 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-c1e1198466

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118



--- Comment #6 from Fedora Update System  ---
protoparser-3.1.5-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24.
https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-c1e1198466

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118

Fedora Update System  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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118



--- Comment #5 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/protoparser

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118



--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #3)
> > used by protostream-3.x newer release are not compatibily
> 
> https://github.com/square/protoparser#deprecated

when protostream will use wire, then we will change it
this is used for now by wildfly 10+. and for me is ok for now

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118

Raphael Groner  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||projects...@smart.ms



--- Comment #3 from Raphael Groner  ---
> used by protostream-3.x newer release are not compatibily

https://github.com/square/protoparser#deprecated

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6442
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6443

-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118

Michael Simacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |
  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek  ---
Package Review
==

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



= 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". 25 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/msimacek/reviews/1354118-protoparser/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.
[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 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: 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]: 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:
[x]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a 

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118

Michael Simacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
 CC||msima...@redhat.com
   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|msima...@redhat.com
  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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118

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

[Bug 1354118] Review Request: protoparser - Java parser for .proto schema declarations

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354118

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1354116




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1354116
[Bug 1354116] Update to protostream-3.0.4.Final
-- 
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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org