Bug 1163816

Available new releases, please consider upgrading
https://github.com/SonarSource/sonar-runner/releases/tag/2.4

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.
[!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "LGPL (v3 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 9 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1163816-sonar-
     runner/licensecheck.txt
[!]: 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/java/sonar, /usr/share/maven-metadata,
     /usr/share/maven-poms/sonar
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/sonar, /usr/share
     /maven-poms/sonar, /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.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

===== 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 sonar-
     runner-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[?]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[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.

===== 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: sonar-runner-2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          sonar-runner-javadoc-2.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          sonar-runner-2.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
sonar-runner.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint sonar-runner sonar-runner-javadoc
sonar-runner.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
sonar-runner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils

sonar-runner-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
sonar-runner:
    mvn(org.codehaus.sonar-plugins:sonar-runner)
    mvn(org.codehaus.sonar-plugins:sonar-runner:pom:)
    mvn(org.codehaus.sonar-plugins:sonar-runner:zip:)
    sonar-runner

sonar-runner-javadoc:
    sonar-runner-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/SonarSource/sonar-runner/archive/2.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f62bb60ef31f2cd3befdb9cf6b061e341705f3cb8c9e6cf221d71e66a87eb441
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f62bb60ef31f2cd3befdb9cf6b061e341705f3cb8c9e6cf221d71e66a87eb441


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1163816 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -L /home/gil/deps
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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Built with local dependencies:
    /home/gil/deps/sonar-plugins-parent-16-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
    /home/gil/deps/sonar-3.2-1.fc22.noarch.rpm

NON blockin issues:

[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.

Please, ask to upstream to include copy of LGPL license text.
Temporarily, install license file from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt

[!]: Latest version is packaged. (see above)

Fix before import
APPROVED

I have a doubt about this artifact mvn(org.codehaus.sonar-plugins:sonar-runner:zip:) is it really necessary?

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> NON blockin issues:
> 
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> 
> [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
> file
>      from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> 
> Please, ask to upstream to include copy of LGPL license text.
> Temporarily, install license file from https://www.gnu.org/licenses/lgpl.txt

Including the license alongside the binary distribution is required by licenses such as ASL 2.0 or BSD. But LGPL doesn't have such requirement, so I believe this is not necessary.


> 
> [!]: Latest version is packaged. (see above)

I need the version to match version of sonar which is needed for gradle.


> 
> Fix before import
> APPROVED

Thank you!


(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> I have a doubt about this artifact
> mvn(org.codehaus.sonar-plugins:sonar-runner:zip:) is it really necessary?

It's not, removed it

Spec URL: https://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/sonar-runner.spec
SRPM URL: https://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/sonar-runner-2.0-2.fc20.src.rpm


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: sonar-runner
Short Description: Default launcher to analyze a project with SonarQube
Upstream URL: http://www.sonarqube.org
Owners: msimacek mizdebsk msrb
Branches: f21
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).