Bug 1303451

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12763220

Informed upstream and asked them to include a license header in each source file https://github.com/pusher/pusher-websocket-java/issues/94

Hi
Available pusher-java-client-1.0.1.
Please, consider upgrading

It seems like XChange works against the 1.0.1 version, so I bumped the version to 1.0.1.

New files:
Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/pusher-java-client/pusher-java-client.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/pusher-java-client/pusher-java-client-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12946901

jonny's scratch build of pusher-java-client-1.0.1-1.fc24.src.rpm for f24 completed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12946901

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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1303451-pusher-java-
     client/licensecheck.txt
    All java source files are without license headers. Please,
    ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s adding license headers
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification
[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.
[-]: 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: 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 pusher-
     java-client-javadoc
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: pusher-java-client-1.0.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          pusher-java-client-javadoc-1.0.1-1.fc24.noarch.rpm
          pusher-java-client-1.0.1-1.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
--------
pusher-java-client (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(com.google.code.gson:gson)
    mvn(org.java-websocket:Java-WebSocket)
    mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api)

pusher-java-client-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
pusher-java-client:
    mvn(com.pusher:pusher-java-client)
    mvn(com.pusher:pusher-java-client:pom:)
    pusher-java-client

pusher-java-client-javadoc:
    pusher-java-client-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/pusher/pusher-websocket-java/archive/pusher-java-client-1.0.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : bbc09b6c8a57abc50c593a87355ceddddd98cf9ab09dc3f2b78be054fcdad2da
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : bbc09b6c8a57abc50c593a87355ceddddd98cf9ab09dc3f2b78be054fcdad2da


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1303451 --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

Issues:
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated". 54 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1303451-pusher-java-
     client/licensecheck.txt
All java source files are without license headers. Please,
ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s adding license headers
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

> All java source files are without license headers. Please,
ask to upstream to confirm the licensing of code and/or content/s adding license headers

I asked if they could include the license header in this issue, but there is no response:
https://github.com/pusher/pusher-websocket-java/issues/94

Approved

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/pusher-java-client