[Bug 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ON_QA   |CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |ERRATA
Last Closed|2016-08-24 12:52:16 |2016-09-24 11:14:23



--- Comment #13 from Fedora Update System  ---
jackson-datatype-jsr310-2.7.6-2.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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244

Fedora Update System  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|CLOSED  |ON_QA
 Resolution|RAWHIDE |---
   Keywords||Reopened



--- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System  ---
jackson-datatype-jsr310-2.7.6-2.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-2016-79a8b90357

-- 
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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244



--- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System  ---
jackson-datatype-jsr310-2.7.6-2.fc25 has been submitted as an update to Fedora
25. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-79a8b90357

-- 
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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244

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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED
 Resolution|--- |RAWHIDE
Last Closed||2016-08-24 12:52:16



-- 
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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Fixed In Version||jackson-datatype-jsr310-2.7
   ||.6-2.fc26



--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo  ---
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15364606

-- 
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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244



--- Comment #9 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/jackson-datatype-jsr310

-- 
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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo  ---
Thanks for the review!

create new SCM request/s:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/7418

-- 
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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244

Michael Simacek  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

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



--- Comment #7 from Michael Simacek  ---
Looks ok now, APPROVED


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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-jsr310.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-jsr310-2.7.6-1.fc24.src.rpm

- add original ASL 2.0 txt file

-- 
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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244



--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #4)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2)
> > (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1)
> > > Package Review
> > > ==
> > > 
> > > Legend:
> > > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> > > [ ] = Manual review needed
> > > 
> > > Issues
> > > --
> > > - The LICENSE file contains only link to license, not the license text. 
> > > ASL
> > > 2.0
> > >   requires that a copy of the license itself is distributed alongside the
> > >   software.
> > 
> > Upstream it does not provide the original ASL license because as already
> > said several times to (Tatu S.) do not want to increase the size of their
> > libraries in Android environment
> 
> Adding it to sources won't increase their library size. They just need to
> have it in the top directory and not in resources, so it won't end up in
> JARs.
> 
> I'm fine with having it as another source before they respond.
Yes, i know not realize most of the times I did this,
but them (him) do not want

-- 
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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244



--- Comment #4 from Michael Simacek  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2)
> (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1)
> > Package Review
> > ==
> > 
> > Legend:
> > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> > [ ] = Manual review needed
> > 
> > Issues
> > --
> > - The LICENSE file contains only link to license, not the license text. ASL
> > 2.0
> >   requires that a copy of the license itself is distributed alongside the
> >   software.
> 
> Upstream it does not provide the original ASL license because as already
> said several times to (Tatu S.) do not want to increase the size of their
> libraries in Android environment

Adding it to sources won't increase their library size. They just need to have
it in the top directory and not in resources, so it won't end up in JARs.

I'm fine with having it as another source before they respond.

-- 
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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-jsr310.spec
SRPM URL:
https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackson-datatype-jsr310-2.7.6-1.fc24.src.rpm

- fix URL field

-- 
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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244



--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1)
> Package Review
> ==
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> Issues
> --
> - The LICENSE file contains only link to license, not the license text. ASL
> 2.0
>   requires that a copy of the license itself is distributed alongside the
>   software.

Upstream it does not provide the original ASL license because as already said
several times to (Tatu S.) do not want to increase the size of their libraries
in Android environment

> - URL is 404
Strange ... now check

-- 
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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244



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

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

Issues
--
- The LICENSE file contains only link to license, not the license text. ASL 2.0
  requires that a copy of the license itself is distributed alongside the
  software.
- URL is 404


= 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.
[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". 83 files have unknown
 license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/msimacek/reviews/1369244-jackson-datatype-
 jsr310/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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 20480 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:
[!]: 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]: 

[Bug 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244

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 1369244] Review Request: jackson-datatype-jsr310 - Add-on module to support JSR-310 ( Java 8 Date & Time API) data types

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1369244

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