Bug 1259852

Needs Bug 1259851 to satisfy the memoryfilesystem-dependency which is needed to run the unit tests

can you review this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1235949 for me?

Spec URL: https://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/assertj/assertj-core.spec
SRPM URL: https://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/assertj/assertj-core-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm

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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1259852-assertj-
     core/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[?]: 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 20480 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in assertj-
     core-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
 Please, consider to upgrading to 2.2.0 or better 2.3.0
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: assertj-core-2.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          assertj-core-javadoc-2.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          assertj-core-2.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: File o directory non esistente
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
assertj-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    junit
    mvn(org.mockito:mockito-core)

assertj-core-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
assertj-core:
    assertj-core
    mvn(org.assertj:assertj-core)
    mvn(org.assertj:assertj-core:pom:)
    osgi(org.assertj.core)

assertj-core-javadoc:
    assertj-core-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/joel-costigliola/assertj-core/archive/assertj-core-2.1.0.tar.gz#/assertj-core-2.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 978f0f6a6bf5bc72cde17b0ea0136abb9f8590c174bc4f372e5e6f05d70a1e31
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 978f0f6a6bf5bc72cde17b0ea0136abb9f8590c174bc4f372e5e6f05d70a1e31


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1259852 --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:

[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.


[!]: Latest version is packaged.
 Please, consider to upgrading to 2.2.0 or better 2.3.0

Suggestion:
Please, remove maven-compiler-plugin

Please, remove
%pom_xpath_inject "pom:project" "
    <properties>
        <project.build.sourceEncoding>UTF-8</project.build.sourceEncoding>
        <maven.compiler.source>1.7</maven.compiler.source>
        <maven.compiler.target>1.7</maven.compiler.target>
    </properties>"

you can use
%mvn_build -- -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8

Spec URL: https://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/assertj/assertj-core.spec
SRPM URL: https://rfenkhuber.fedorapeople.org/assertj/assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc24.src.rpm

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> NON blocking issues:
> 
> [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.

Removed some implicit dependencies from BuildRequires.

Assertj can be used with junit or testng. I decided to add assertj as a Requires. A developer can still just install the testng package and use it with assertj. Are there better solutions for this scenario?

> 
> [!]: Latest version is packaged.
>  Please, consider to upgrading to 2.2.0 or better 2.3.0

I presume you meen 3.1.0 instead of 2.3.0.
I updated to 2.2.0. Want to go with that, as 2.2.0 and 3.1.0 are equally well maintained and only 2.2.0 is java7 compatible. Maybe I should also add a "assertj-core3" package?

> Suggestion:
> Please, remove maven-compiler-plugin
> 
> Please, remove
> %pom_xpath_inject "pom:project" "
>     <properties>
>         <project.build.sourceEncoding>UTF-8</project.build.sourceEncoding>
>         <maven.compiler.source>1.7</maven.compiler.source>
>         <maven.compiler.target>1.7</maven.compiler.target>
xmvn resisted to accept any other way to tell it that it should use java7 mode.

>     </properties>"
>
> you can use
> %mvn_build -- -Dproject.build.sourceEncoding=UTF-8

Moved the sourceEncoding to the %mvn_build line

(In reply to Roman Mohr from comment #7)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> > NON blocking issues:
> > 
> > [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
> 
> Removed some implicit dependencies from BuildRequires.
> 
> Assertj can be used with junit or testng. I decided to add assertj as a
> Requires. A developer can still just install the testng package and use it
> with assertj. Are there better solutions for this scenario?
Requires should be added/listed by our Java tools
> > 
> > [!]: Latest version is packaged.
> >  Please, consider to upgrading to 2.2.0 or better 2.3.0
> 
> I presume you meen 3.1.0 instead of 2.3.0.
> I updated to 2.2.0. Want to go with that, as 2.2.0 and 3.1.0 are equally
yes, sure sorry for my mistake
> well maintained and only 2.2.0 is java7 compatible. Maybe I should also add
> a "assertj-core3" package?
In fedora do not more exist Java7...

> > %pom_xpath_inject "pom:project" "
> >     <properties>
> >         <project.build.sourceEncoding>UTF-8</project.build.sourceEncoding>
> >         <maven.compiler.source>1.7</maven.compiler.source>
> >         <maven.compiler.target>1.7</maven.compiler.target>
> xmvn resisted to accept any other way to tell it that it should use java7
> mode.
This should be done by our java/maven tools

Please, fix :
assertj-core.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-1 ['2.2.0-1.fc24', '2.2.0-1']

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> (In reply to Roman Mohr from comment #7)
> > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)



> > > %pom_xpath_inject "pom:project" "
> > >     <properties>
> > >         <project.build.sourceEncoding>UTF-8</project.build.sourceEncoding>
> > >         <maven.compiler.source>1.7</maven.compiler.source>
> > >         <maven.compiler.target>1.7</maven.compiler.target>
> > xmvn resisted to accept any other way to tell it that it should use java7
> > mode.
> This should be done by our java/maven tools

Other way:
%pom_add_plugin org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin:3.0 . '
<configuration>
 <source>1.7</source>
 <target>1.7</target>
 <encoding>UTF-8</encoding>
</configuration>'

> Please, fix :
> assertj-core.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-1
> ['2.2.0-1.fc24', '2.2.0-1']

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: assertj-core
Short Description: Library of assertions similar to fest-assert
Upstream URL: http://joel-costigliola.github.io/assertj/
Owners: rfenkhuber
Branches: f22 f23 epel7
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15478

assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15479

assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update assertj-core'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15478

assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update assertj-core'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-15479

assertj-core-2.2.0-1.el7 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 7. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8023

assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

assertj-core-2.2.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.\nIf you want to test the update, you can install it with \n su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update assertj-core'. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2015-8023

assertj-core-2.2.0-1.el7 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 7 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

assertj-core-2.2.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.