Bug 1262157

I am unable to build the SRPM. I have jackcess-2.1.2-1.fc24.noarch being pulled in the mock build.

[INFO] BUILD FAILURE
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[INFO] Total time: 0.464 s
[INFO] Finished at: 2015-09-30T23:57:01-05:00
[INFO] Final Memory: 13M/304M
[INFO] ------------------------------------------------------------------------
[ERROR] Failed to execute goal on project jackcess-encrypt: Could not resolve dependencies for project com.healthmarketscience.jackcess:jackcess-encrypt:jar:2.1.0: The following artifacts could not be resolved: com.healthmarketscience.jackcess:jackcess:jar:2.1.0, com.healthmarketscience.jackcess:jackcess:jar:tests:2.1.0: Cannot access central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact com.healthmarketscience.jackcess:jackcess:jar:2.1.0 has not been downloaded from it before. -> [Help 1]
[ERROR]
[ERROR] To see the full stack trace of the errors, re-run Maven with the -e switch.
[ERROR] Re-run Maven using the -X switch to enable full debug logging.
[ERROR]
[ERROR] For more information about the errors and possible solutions, please read the following articles:
[ERROR] [Help 1] http://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/MAVEN/DependencyResolutionException

Please, review this before https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262158
thanks in advance

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2)
> Please, review this before
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1262158
> thanks in advance

I will review it. FYI: You may use the "-L" switch for fedora-review to import outside packages into the review mock build.

The build completed when I built against jackcess-2.1.0 (as indicated by the build log).

I will continue with the jackcess review of 2.1.2, but you will need to modify this package to build against it.

(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #4)
> The build completed when I built against jackcess-2.1.0 (as indicated by the
> build log).
> 
> I will continue with the jackcess review of 2.1.2, but you will need to
> modify this package to build against it.

Sorry, i dont understand. What would I change?

This package (jackcess-encrypt) requires jackcess = 2.1.0 to build. If you want to package the 2.1.2 version of jackcess this package will need to be patched to build against it.

I'm not entirely familiar with the POM framework so I will have to make a best suggestion at this...

jackcess-encrypt-2.1.0/pom.xml:
    <dependency>
      <groupId>com.healthmarketscience.jackcess</groupId>
      <artifactId>jackcess</artifactId>
      <version>2.1.0</version>
      <type>test-jar</type>
      <scope>test</scope>
    </dependency>

The version text needs to be updated to 2.1.2.

Sorry, this one too:

    <dependency>
      <groupId>com.healthmarketscience.jackcess</groupId>
      <artifactId>jackcess</artifactId>
      <version>2.1.0</version>
    </dependency>

(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #7)
> Sorry, this one too:
> 
>     <dependency>
>       <groupId>com.healthmarketscience.jackcess</groupId>
>       <artifactId>jackcess</artifactId>
>       <version>2.1.0</version>
>     </dependency>

Is not necessary, our java tools, does not check the required libraries version

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> (In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #7)
> > Sorry, this one too:
> > 
> >     <dependency>
> >       <groupId>com.healthmarketscience.jackcess</groupId>
> >       <artifactId>jackcess</artifactId>
> >       <version>2.1.0</version>
> >     </dependency>
> 
> Is not necessary, our java tools, does not check the required libraries
> version

the only exception is for the packages compact e.g. log4j12, jersey1, ...

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> Is not necessary, our java tools, does not check the required libraries
> version

I always assume to test against all Fedora versions in reviews. I wish your java tools were more uniform across Fedora versions.

Since you are only adding these to F23+ I will ignore the build error on F21 and F22. I will provide a full review once I have time.

when i talk of "our java tools" mainly i refer to http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/javapackages-tools.git/

... and in second time to http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/xmvn.git/

The message regarding the different spec file output can be ignored as it only affects a comment and I trust you will use your best judgment on importing the final spec.


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)". Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/michael/Temp/1262157-jackcess-encrypt/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.
[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 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]: 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
[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
     jackcess-encrypt-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[-]: 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]: 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: jackcess-encrypt-2.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          jackcess-encrypt-javadoc-2.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          jackcess-encrypt-2.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
jackcess-encrypt.noarch: W: no-documentation
jackcess-encrypt.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jackcess-encrypt-2.1.0.tar.xz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
jackcess-encrypt.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/michael/Temp/1262157-jackcess-encrypt/srpm/jackcess-encrypt.spec      2015-10-01 12:08:51.878483453 -0500
+++ /home/michael/Temp/1262157-jackcess-encrypt/srpm-unpacked/jackcess-encrypt.spec     2015-09-02 19:20:06.000000000 -0500
@@ -98,5 +98,5 @@
 </dependencies>"

-# Use old com.healthmarketscience.jackcess:jackcess
+
 rm -r src/test/java/com/healthmarketscience/jackcess/CryptCodecProviderTest.java



Requires
--------
jackcess-encrypt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(com.healthmarketscience.jackcess:jackcess)
    mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk15)

jackcess-encrypt-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
jackcess-encrypt:
    jackcess-encrypt
    mvn(com.healthmarketscience.jackcess:jackcess-encrypt)
    mvn(com.healthmarketscience.jackcess:jackcess-encrypt:pom:)
    osgi(com.healthmarketscience.jackcess.encrypt)

jackcess-encrypt-javadoc:
    jackcess-encrypt-javadoc



Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1262157 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -L jackcess
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

Built with local dependencies:
    /home/michael/Temp/jackcess/jackcess-javadoc-2.1.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
    /home/michael/Temp/jackcess/jackcess-2.1.2-1.fc24.noarch.rpm


APPROVED

Thanks!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jackcess-encrypt
Short Description: Java implementation of the encryption service for MS Access
Upstream URL: http://jackcessencrypt.sourceforge.net/
Owners: gil
Branches: f23
InitialCC: java-sig

(In reply to Michael Cronenworth from comment #13)
> The message regarding the different spec file output can be ignored as it
> only affects a comment and I trust you will use your best judgment on
> importing the final spec.

sure, my apologize for the inconvenience

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackcess-encrypt.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jackcess-encrypt-2.1.0-1.fc22.src.rpm

fixed

Git done (by process-git-requests).

jackcess-encrypt-2.1.0-1.fc23 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 23. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-67b1d16e52

jackcess-encrypt-2.1.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update jackcess-encrypt'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-67b1d16e52

jackcess-encrypt-2.1.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.