Bug 1328062

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

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

Issues
======
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
- as in packaging guidelines the package should preserve timestamps. [1]\
  In spec file I can see: "cp $cpfrom $cpto" should there be also a -p
  option like guidelines say

Shoulds
=======
[!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
     file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
- these two go hand in hand I think

rpmlint
=======
jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation
- isn't there a documentation somewhere? There has to be some I think!

===== 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. No licenses
     found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[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
[-]: 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.
[!]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     jetbrains-annotations-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: 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.
[!]: 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).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: jetbrains-annotations-15.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          jetbrains-annotations-javadoc-15.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          jetbrains-annotations-15.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) IntelliJ -> Intelligent, Lintel
jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation
jetbrains-annotations.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) IntelliJ -> Intelligent, Lintel
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) IntelliJ -> Intelligent, Lintel
jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
jetbrains-annotations-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-tools

jetbrains-annotations (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools



Provides
--------
jetbrains-annotations-javadoc:
    jetbrains-annotations-javadoc

jetbrains-annotations:
    jetbrains-annotations
    mvn(com.intellij:annotations)
    mvn(com.intellij:annotations:pom:)
    mvn(org.jetbrains:annotations)
    mvn(org.jetbrains:annotations:pom:)



Source checksums
----------------
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/jetbrains/annotations/15.0/annotations-15.0-sources.jar :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 5ab01a68db908fa869038e1f30f3f6c31e6d90115142f24ced767f9bb7e845e0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5ab01a68db908fa869038e1f30f3f6c31e6d90115142f24ced767f9bb7e845e0
http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/jetbrains/annotations/15.0/annotations-15.0.pom :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 6726678ac07b481b5e35d3aeefce526b95fd18ede33d0d85cb1c688bcdf0e840
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6726678ac07b481b5e35d3aeefce526b95fd18ede33d0d85cb1c688bcdf0e840


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n jetbrains-annotations-15.0-1.fc23.src.rpm
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

(In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #1)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> Issues
> ======
> [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
What do you mean?
> [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
> - as in packaging guidelines the package should preserve timestamps. [1]\
>   In spec file I can see: "cp $cpfrom $cpto" should there be also a -p
>   option like guidelines say
Solved
> Shoulds
> =======
> [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
>      file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
> [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> - these two go hand in hand I think
> The original source code is available @ https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/ which include LICENSES files. But i don't want use because i don't want download also 3 GB of useless crap for only 113 KB of source code

> rpmlint
> =======
> jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation
> - isn't there a documentation somewhere? There has to be some I think!
as above

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jetbrains-annotations.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jetbrains-annotations-15.0-2.fc23.src.rpm

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2)
> What do you mean?
I meant that the timestamps issue is also mentioned in guidelines so therefore I considered that the guidelines are not met.
> Solved
By soliving timestamps you also solved guidelines issue. As simple as that.
> The original source code is available @ https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/ which include LICENSES files. But i don't want use because i don't want download also 3 GB of useless crap for only 113 KB of source code
I agree, sounds reasonable. 
> documentation as above
All right I don't pursue including the whole documentation. I also think creating a simple readme at least explaining where to find information in case of need would be nice. Also for tracking reasons. It's not mandatory though.

Just a quick yes or no answer on the documentation and I'll approve this package.

(In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #3)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2)
> > What do you mean?
> I meant that the timestamps issue is also mentioned in guidelines so
> therefore I considered that the guidelines are not met.
> > Solved
> By soliving timestamps you also solved guidelines issue. As simple as that.
Maybe could i remove, the code do not contains resources ...
> > The original source code is available @ https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/ which include LICENSES files. But i don't want use because i don't want download also 3 GB of useless crap for only 113 KB of source code
> I agree, sounds reasonable. 
> > documentation as above
> All right I don't pursue including the whole documentation. I also think
> creating a simple readme at least explaining where to find information in
> case of need would be nice. Also for tracking reasons. It's not mandatory
> though.
> 
> Just a quick yes or no answer on the documentation and I'll approve this
> package.
Sorry i do not understand that kind of documentation is needed.
If it is for the source code just take a look at the POM file (maven-antrun-plugin). Instead, for the functionality of these apis just the generated java documentation. Finally I do not think I will add nothing else.
Thanks for your patience

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> If it is for the source code just take a look at the POM file
> (maven-antrun-plugin). Instead, for the functionality of these apis just the
> generated java documentation. Finally I do not think I will add nothing else.
> Thanks for your patience

All right Javadoc is fine I guess.

The package is by my opinion ready.

Thanks for the review!
SCM request:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/5102
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/5103

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/jetbrains-annotations

jetbrains-annotations-15.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5a560d7399

jetbrains-annotations-15.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5a560d7399

jetbrains-annotations-15.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.