Bug 1265853

I will take this review.

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

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


Issues:
=======
- This package is missing the latest patch added to the openjpeg2 package,
  to fix a double free: 0fa5a17c98c4b8f9ee2286f4f0a50cf52a5fccb0.patch.

===== 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: "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
     "Unknown or generated", "BSD (4 clause)". 112 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jamesjer/1265853
     -mingw-openjpeg2/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[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
     This is mingw.  Normal rules don't apply.
[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]: 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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro.
[-]: 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.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     mingw32-openjpeg2 , mingw32-openjpeg2-tools , mingw64-openjpeg2 ,
     mingw64-openjpeg2-tools
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
     Note: mingw64-openjpeg2 : /usr/x86_64-w64-mingw32/sys-
     root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libopenjp2.pc mingw32-openjpeg2 :
     /usr/i686-w64-mingw32/sys-root/mingw/lib/pkgconfig/libopenjp2.pc
[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.

===== 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: mingw32-openjpeg2-2.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          mingw32-openjpeg2-tools-2.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          mingw64-openjpeg2-2.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          mingw64-openjpeg2-tools-2.1.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          mingw-openjpeg2-2.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
mingw32-openjpeg2.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-openjpeg2-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-openjpeg2.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-openjpeg2-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
mingw64-openjpeg2.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-openjpeg2.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw64-openjpeg2-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation
mingw32-openjpeg2-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Requires
--------
mingw64-openjpeg2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    mingw64(kernel32.dll)
    mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
    mingw64-crt
    mingw64-filesystem
    mingw64-pkg-config

mingw32-openjpeg2 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    mingw32(kernel32.dll)
    mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
    mingw32-crt
    mingw32-filesystem
    mingw32-pkg-config

mingw64-openjpeg2-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    mingw64(kernel32.dll)
    mingw64(libopenjp2.dll)
    mingw64(msvcrt.dll)
    mingw64-crt
    mingw64-filesystem
    mingw64-openjpeg2

mingw32-openjpeg2-tools (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    mingw32(kernel32.dll)
    mingw32(libopenjp2.dll)
    mingw32(msvcrt.dll)
    mingw32-crt
    mingw32-filesystem
    mingw32-openjpeg2



Provides
--------
mingw64-openjpeg2:
    mingw64(libopenjp2.dll)
    mingw64-openjpeg2

mingw32-openjpeg2:
    mingw32(libopenjp2.dll)
    mingw32-openjpeg2

mingw64-openjpeg2-tools:
    mingw64-openjpeg2-tools

mingw32-openjpeg2-tools:
    mingw32-openjpeg2-tools



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/uclouvain/openjpeg/archive/version.2.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4afc996cd5e0d16360d71c58216950bcb4ce29a3272360eb29cadb1c8bce4efc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4afc996cd5e0d16360d71c58216950bcb4ce29a3272360eb29cadb1c8bce4efc


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1265853 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Java, C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

Just add the missing patch when you import the package.  This package is APPROVED.

Ok will do, thanks for the review!

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/mingw-openjpeg2

mingw-openjpeg2-2.1.0-1.fc22 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 22. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c0ed83197a

mingw-openjpeg2-2.1.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
If you want to test the update, you can install it with
$ su -c 'dnf --enablerepo=updates-testing update mingw-openjpeg2'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-c0ed83197a

mingw-openjpeg2-2.1.0-1.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 mingw-openjpeg2'
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2015-10c342741b

mingw-openjpeg2-2.1.0-1.fc23 has been pushed to the Fedora 23 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

mingw-openjpeg2-2.1.0-1.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.