Bug 1228024

hi
can you take this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1228169 ?
thanks in advance

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

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


Issues:
=======
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
  Note: No javadoc subpackage present
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
  subpackage
  Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for
  Fedora versions >= 21
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation


===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1228024
     -bundling-detection-java/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses,
     /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]: 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 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]: 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
[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

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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: 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.
[x]: %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:
[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: bundling-detection-java-0.1-0.1.20150604git.fc23.noarch.rpm
          bundling-detection-java-0.1-0.1.20150604git.fc23.src.rpm
bundling-detection-java.noarch: W: no-documentation
bundling-detection-java.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bundling-detector-java
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
bundling-detection-java.noarch: W: no-documentation
bundling-detection-java.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bundling-detector-java
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
bundling-detection-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    /bin/bash
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
bundling-detection-java:
    bundling-detection-java
    mvn(org.fedoraproject.bundling:bundling-detection-cli)
    mvn(org.fedoraproject.bundling:bundling-detection-cli:pom:)
    mvn(org.fedoraproject.bundling:bundling-detection-lib)
    mvn(org.fedoraproject.bundling:bundling-detection-lib:pom:)
    mvn(org.fedoraproject.bundling:bundling-detection:pom:)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/msrb/bundling-detection-java/archive/630327e8c66f32749bf7d1bcc89d4ad269a17b95/bundling-detection-java-630327e8c66f32749bf7d1bcc89d4ad269a17b95.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 0b6eabb78a339f8fabf32805b43c8abdf190a47d1fa4984666412ee8be44b43c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0b6eabb78a339f8fabf32805b43c8abdf190a47d1fa4984666412ee8be44b43c


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1228024 --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

NON blocking issues found
NOTE: a file don't have license header
lib/src/main/java/org/fedoraproject/bundling/internal/DefaultBundledClass.java
approved

Thanks!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: bundling-detection-java
Short Description: Bundling detection tool for Java
Upstream URL: https://github.com/msrb/bundling-detection-java
Owners: msrb mizdebsk msimacek
Branches: f22 f21
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

bundling-detection-java-0.1-0.4.20150611git.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bundling-detection-java-0.1-0.4.20150611git.fc22

bundling-detection-java-0.1-0.4.20150611git.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/bundling-detection-java-0.1-0.4.20150611git.fc21

bundling-detection-java-0.1-0.4.20150611git.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.

The package is in Fedora, I believe this should be closed.