Bug 1116363

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7106912

This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
  a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
  listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
  case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
  in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
  ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text



Package Review
==============

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


Issues:
=======
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to
  get additional checks


===== 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:
     "Unknown or generated". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/jvanek/1116363-jackson-dataformat-
     cbor/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-metadata
[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.
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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 3 files.
[-]: 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 %doc.
[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 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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 depmaps) 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 %{_mavenpomdir} 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jackson-
     dataformat-cbor-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
mvn have testrun in build
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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: jackson-dataformat-cbor-2.4.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          jackson-dataformat-cbor-javadoc-2.4.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          jackson-dataformat-cbor-2.4.1-1.fc21.src.rpm
jackson-dataformat-cbor.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonForCbor HTTP Error 404: NOTFOUND
jackson-dataformat-cbor-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonForCbor HTTP Error 404: NOTFOUND
jackson-dataformat-cbor.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonForCbor HTTP Error 404: NOTFOUND
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint jackson-dataformat-cbor-javadoc jackson-dataformat-cbor
jackson-dataformat-cbor-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonForCbor HTTP Error 404: NOTFOUND
jackson-dataformat-cbor.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonForCbor HTTP Error 404: NOTFOUND
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
jackson-dataformat-cbor-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils

jackson-dataformat-cbor (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-core)



Provides
--------
jackson-dataformat-cbor-javadoc:
    jackson-dataformat-cbor-javadoc

jackson-dataformat-cbor:
    jackson-dataformat-cbor
    mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformat-cbor)
    mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat:jackson-dataformat-cbor:pom:)
    osgi(com.fasterxml.jackson.dataformat.jackson-dataformat-cbor)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformat-cbor/archive/jackson-dataformat-cbor-2.4.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5ba250ca42f86fa24e59a01f0774b428fe6e64cf4341b0b622507fc96efb6228
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5ba250ca42f86fa24e59a01f0774b428fe6e64cf4341b0b622507fc96efb6228


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1116363 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

The only minor issue is  "http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonForCbor HTTP Error 404: NOTFOUND" project url.

The project  sources are located in  https://github.com/FasterXML/jackson-dataformat-cbor/ , which is correct in source.  Also the   http://wiki.fasterxml.com/ is correct wiki for all Jackson components.  Only issue, cbor one donot exists.

I'm not sure if it was ever exisitng, but probably one time it will.

ok . to go.

Regarding recent branching, please include this package both to f21 and rawhide.

Thank for the review!
About Url, http://wiki.fasterxml.com/JacksonForCbor, with any browser, this page is loaded correctly

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jackson-dataformat-cbor
Short Description: Jackson data format module for Concise Binary Object Representation (CBOR)
Owners: gil
Branches: f21
InitialCC: java-sig

Well thats interesting :)

For me it is - yes - real page, but with text: "This page does not exist yet. You can create a new empty page, or use one of the page templates."

And in list of described jackson* componets, this one is  really missing.

Git done (by process-git-requests).

should fixed jackson-dataformat-cbor-2.4.1-1.fc21
Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=7121167
there are some problems when manage the update:
Creating a new update for  jackson-dataformat-cbor-2.4.1-1.fc21 
jackson-dataformat-cbor-2.4.1-1.fc21 not tagged as an update candidate

for now close this bug