Bug 1178149

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-hateoas.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-hateoas-0.16.0-1.fc20.src.rpm

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9579384

I will take this review.

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

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



===== 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.
[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.
[-]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 30720 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 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: 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]: 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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see
     attached diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: springframework-hateoas-0.16.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          springframework-hateoas-javadoc-0.16.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm
          springframework-hateoas-0.16.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
springframework-hateoas.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Library to support implementing representations for hyper-text driven REST web services
springframework-hateoas.src: E: summary-too-long C Library to support implementing representations for hyper-text driven REST web services
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
springframework-hateoas.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Library to support implementing representations for hyper-text driven REST web services
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/jamesjer/1178149-springframework-hateoas/srpm/springframework-hateoas.spec	2015-05-30 14:26:00.751142257 -0600
+++ /home/jamesjer/1178149-springframework-hateoas/srpm-unpacked/springframework-hateoas.spec	2015-04-27 06:55:33.000000000 -0600
@@ -31,5 +31,5 @@
 %if 0
 BuildRequires: mvn(ch.qos.logback:logback-classic)
-BuildRequires: mvn(joda-time:joda-time)
+BuildRequires: mvn(oda-time:joda-time)
 BuildRequires: mvn(junit:junit)
 BuildRequires: mvn(net.jadler:jadler-all)


Requires
--------
springframework-hateoas-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils

springframework-hateoas (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(net.sf.cglib:cglib)
    mvn(org.objenesis:objenesis)
    mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api)
    mvn(org.springframework:spring-aop)
    mvn(org.springframework:spring-beans)
    mvn(org.springframework:spring-context)
    mvn(org.springframework:spring-core)
    mvn(org.springframework:spring-web)
    mvn(org.springframework:spring-webmvc)



Provides
--------
springframework-hateoas-javadoc:
    springframework-hateoas-javadoc

springframework-hateoas:
    mvn(org.springframework.hateoas:spring-hateoas)
    mvn(org.springframework.hateoas:spring-hateoas:pom:)
    osgi(org.springframework.hateoas)
    springframework-hateoas



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/spring-projects/spring-hateoas/archive/0.16.0.RELEASE.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b41724d2893896e2ecadf905aa3bef0509fa4d94d3436e8cf3b9da3a644a617b
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b41724d2893896e2ecadf905aa3bef0509fa4d94d3436e8cf3b9da3a644a617b


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1178149 -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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

There are only 2 issues, both very minor.  First, the spec file in comment 1 differs by 1 character from the spec file inside the source RPM.  The difference is an obvious typo fix.  Just make sure you check in the right one. :-)

The second is the complaint that the Summary line is too long.  I think there is a lot of unnecessary verbiage on the front end of the Summary.  What do you think about shortening it to "Representations for hyper-text driven REST web services"?  Even with that, there is some redundancy with "hyper-text", "REST", and "web", but removing that is not crucial.

Anyway, change the summary or not as you wish.  This package is APPROVED.

(In reply to Jerry James from comment #5)
> There are only 2 issues, both very minor.  First, the spec file in comment 1
> differs by 1 character from the spec file inside the source RPM.  The
> difference is an obvious typo fix.  Just make sure you check in the right
> one. :-)
Fixed
> The second is the complaint that the Summary line is too long.  I think
> there is a lot of unnecessary verbiage on the front end of the Summary. 
> What do you think about shortening it to "Representations for hyper-text
> driven REST web services"?  Even with that, there is some redundancy with
> "hyper-text", "REST", and "web", but removing that is not crucial.
Fixed

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-hateoas.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/springframework-hateoas-0.16.0-1.fc20.src.rpm

> Anyway, change the summary or not as you wish.  This package is APPROVED.

Thanks for the review

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: springframework-hateoas
Short Description: Representations for hyper-text driven REST web services
Upstream URL: http://github.com/SpringSource/spring-hateoas
Owners: gil
Branches: f22
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

springframework-hateoas-0.16.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/springframework-hateoas-0.16.0-1.fc22

springframework-hateoas-0.16.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.

springframework-hateoas-0.16.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.