Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.
Bug 1383781 - Review Request: sunflow - A rendering system for photo-realistic image synthesis
Summary: Review Request: sunflow - A rendering system for photo-realistic image synthesis
Keywords:
Status: CLOSED ERRATA
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
unspecified
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: gil cattaneo
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
URL:
Whiteboard:
Depends On:
Blocks:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2016-10-11 18:00 UTC by Michal Vala
Modified: 2016-11-14 21:01 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: If docs needed, set a value
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2016-11-14 21:01:35 UTC
Type: ---
Embargoed:
puntogil: fedora-review+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Michal Vala 2016-10-11 18:00:37 UTC
Spec URL: https://github.com/sparkoo/sunflow/releases/download/0.07.3/sunflow.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/sparkoo/sunflow/releases/download/0.07.3/sunflow-0.07.3-0.1.20140412git4f5017f.fc24.src.rpm
Description: Sunflow is an open source rendering system for photo-realistic image synthesis.
It is written in Java and built around a flexible ray tracing core and an
extensible object-oriented design.
Fedora Account System Username: michalvala

koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16048321
taken over: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1128343

Comment 1 gil cattaneo 2016-10-12 17:20:00 UTC
Issues:
license is MIT. See https://sourceforge.net/p/sunflow/code/HEAD/tree/trunk/LICENSE

Use %license macro instead of %doc LICENSE
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_create_an_RPM_package#.25files_example

sunflow.jdk.level must be 6 or major, instead of 5 (necessary for JVM >= 1.8)

All source files are without license headers.
Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s, and add license headers
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification


Please, add better description near the patches

Comment 2 Michal Vala 2016-10-17 11:39:41 UTC
Spec URL: https://github.com/sparkoo/sunflow/releases/download/v0.07.3.8097f6d/sunflow.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/sparkoo/sunflow/releases/download/v0.07.3.8097f6d/sunflow-0.07.3-8097f6d.fc24.src.rpm

koji task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16105793

* Mon Oct 17 2016 Michal Vala <mvala 0.07.3.8097f6d
- forked https://github.com/sparkoo/sunflow
- build with maven
- license headers in source files
- applied no jvm warn patch
- updated janino dependency to match with fedora one

Comment 3 gil cattaneo 2016-10-29 20:24:38 UTC
Please, remove (useless) javadoc.jar

Comment 4 gil cattaneo 2016-10-29 20:26:51 UTC
Please, remove also:
BuildRequires: jpackage-utils
BuildRequires: javapackages-tools

because "BuildRequires: maven-local" is enough

Comment 5 gil cattaneo 2016-10-29 20:34:55 UTC
With FAS Username: michalvala return "No packagers found in the database."
Please, add proper FAS Username or re-add this bug in rhbz#177841

Comment 6 Michal Vala 2016-10-31 12:41:19 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> With FAS Username: michalvala return "No packagers found in the database."
> Please, add proper FAS Username or re-add this bug in rhbz#177841

I removed "need sponsor" because my colleague will sponsor me.

Comment 8 gil cattaneo 2016-10-31 22:08:02 UTC
javadoc "MUST be installed ... as part of javadoc subpackage ...".
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/#_javadoc_packages

Comment 9 gil cattaneo 2016-10-31 22:13:38 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1)

> All source files are without license headers.
> Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s,
> and add license headers
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/
> LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

(In reply to Michal Vala from comment #2)

> - license headers in source files
Is necessary contact the main developer/s of this project for license clarifications @ https://sourceforge.net/p/sunflow/discussion/

Comment 10 Michal Vala 2016-11-01 08:40:40 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> javadoc "MUST be installed ... as part of javadoc subpackage ...".
> See:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
> https://fedora-java.github.io/howto/latest/#_javadoc_packages

Sorry, misunderstood. Should be fixed. sunflow-javadoc package is back without javadoc.jar.

koji task: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16265680

Comment 11 Michal Vala 2016-11-01 11:58:20 UTC
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #9)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #1)
> 
> > All source files are without license headers.
> > Please, ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s,
> > and add license headers
> > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/
> > LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification
> 
> (In reply to Michal Vala from comment #2)
> 
> > - license headers in source files
> Is necessary contact the main developer/s of this project for license
> clarifications @ https://sourceforge.net/p/sunflow/discussion/

Wrote an email few weeks ago but without any reaction. I wrote now to different email I found. Also post in forum https://sourceforge.net/p/sunflow/discussion/291739/thread/6c46f0ee/

Comment 12 gil cattaneo 2016-11-03 08:56:45 UTC
have time for review this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1390156 ?

Comment 13 gil cattaneo 2016-11-03 09:19:45 UTC
Build fails: [ERROR] Plugin org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin:3.0.1 or one of its dependencies could not be resolved: Cannot access central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin:jar:3.0.1 has not been downloaded from it before. -> [Help 1]
Please, remove this useless plugin/task with: 
%pom_remove_plugin :maven-source-plugin

RPMS spec file differ with the given spec file

--- /srpm-unpacked/sunflow.spec	2016-10-17 13:24:18.000000000 +0200
+++ /srpm/sunflow.spec	2016-11-03 10:05:04.418398346 +0100
@@ -11,10 +11,8 @@
 Source2: sunflow.desktop
 License: MIT
 BuildArch: noarch
-BuildRequires: jpackage-utils
 BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils
 BuildRequires: dos2unix
-BuildRequires: javapackages-tools
 BuildRequires: maven-local
 BuildRequires: janino
 
@@ -29,8 +27,6 @@
 %description javadoc
 API documentation for sunflow.
 
-# TODO: blender export plugin
-
 %prep
 %setup -q
 dos2unix -k CHANGELOG LICENSE README
@@ -40,7 +36,6 @@
 
 %install
 %mvn_install
-install -D -m 0644 target/%{name}-%{version}-javadoc.jar $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}/%{name}-javadoc.jar
 
 %jpackage_script org.sunflow.SunflowGUI "" "" "janino:sunflow" sunflow true
 
@@ -77,7 +72,6 @@
 
 %files javadoc -f .mfiles-javadoc
 %license LICENSE
-%{_datadir}/java/%{name}/%{name}-javadoc.jar
 
 %changelog
 * Mon Oct 17 2016 Michal Vala <mvala 0.07.3.8097f6d
@@ -86,6 +80,7 @@
 - license headers in source files
 - applied no jvm warn patch
 - updated janino dependency to match with fedora one
+- removed javadoc.jar
 
 * Tue Aug 12 2014 Dominik Mierzejewski <rpm> 0.07.3-0.1.20140412git4f5017f
 - switch to new upstream https://github.com/skrat/sunflow

Comment 14 Michal Vala 2016-11-07 06:53:21 UTC
both fixed

koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=16331717

Comment 15 gil cattaneo 2016-11-07 10:36:26 UTC
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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* GPL (v2 or later) (with
     incorrect FSF address)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated",
     "BSD (3 clause)". 22 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/gil/1383781-sunflow/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/icons/hicolor,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128/apps,
     /usr/share/icons/hicolor/128x128
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
     contains icons.
     Note: icons in sunflow
[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 40960 bytes in 2 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 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
     desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
[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:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0:
     https://github.com/sparkoo/sunflow/releases/download/v0.07.3.8097f6d/sunflow-0.07.3-src.zip
     See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Tags
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in sunflow-
     javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Java:
[x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: sunflow-0.07.3-8097f6d.fc26.noarch.rpm
          sunflow-javadoc-0.07.3-8097f6d.fc26.noarch.rpm
          sunflow-0.07.3-8097f6d.fc26.src.rpm
sunflow.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.07.3.8097f6d ['0.07.3-8097f6d.fc26', '0.07.3-8097f6d']
sunflow.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sunflow
sunflow.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://github.com/sparkoo/sunflow/releases/download/v0.07.3.8097f6d/sunflow-0.07.3-src.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sunflow.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.07.3.8097f6d ['0.07.3-8097f6d.fc26', '0.07.3-8097f6d']
sunflow.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary sunflow
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
sunflow-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-tools

sunflow (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/bash
    /bin/sh
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools
    mvn(org.codehaus.janino:janino)



Provides
--------
sunflow-javadoc:
    sunflow-javadoc

sunflow:
    application()
    application(sunflow.desktop)
    mvn(groupId:sunflow)
    mvn(groupId:sunflow:pom:)
    sunflow



Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1383781 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
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

Comment 16 gil cattaneo 2016-11-07 10:38:36 UTC
NON blocking issues:
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.

sunflow.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.07.3.8097f6d ['0.07.3-8097f6d.fc26', '0.07.3-8097f6d']

Please, fix before import
Approved

Comment 17 Michal Vala 2016-11-07 15:14:30 UTC
fixed, thanks!

Comment 18 jiri vanek 2016-11-08 09:18:15 UTC
Michal is being sponsored.

Comment 19 Gwyn Ciesla 2016-11-08 13:53:37 UTC
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/sunflow

Comment 20 Fedora Update System 2016-11-08 15:36:50 UTC
sunflow-0.07.3-8097f6d.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-e4985bc6c0

Comment 21 Fedora Update System 2016-11-10 04:58:29 UTC
sunflow-0.07.3-8097f6d.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-e4985bc6c0

Comment 22 Fedora Update System 2016-11-14 21:01:35 UTC
sunflow-0.07.3-8097f6d.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.