Bug 1330316

Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13800596

License headers in source files is discussed here https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/issues/1248

Hi Jonny
suggestion:
use

%pom_add_dep org.iq80.leveldb:leveldb::compile core "<optional>true</optional>"
%pom_add_dep org.fusesource.hawtjni:hawtjni-runtime::compile core "<optional>true</optional>"

OR

%pom_add_dep org.iq80.leveldb:leveldb:: core "<optional>true</optional>"
%pom_add_dep org.fusesource.hawtjni:hawtjni-runtime:: core "<optional>true</optional>"

and remove
%global __requires_exclude ^mvn\\(org.iq80.leveldb:leveldb\\)$|^mvn\\(org.fusesource.hawtjni:hawtjni-runtime\\)$

Regards

Nice, thanks

Updated the SPEC with the suggestion proposed by gil

hi
build fails:
[ERROR] Plugin org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.3 or one of its dependencies could not be resolved: Cannot access central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:jar:1.3 has not been downloaded from it before. -> [Help 1]
Please add 
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin)
and for prevent new build failure add also
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin)

Is available a new release:
https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.3
Please, considering upgrade

> Please add 
> BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin)
> and for prevent new build failure add also
> BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin)
Added BuildRequires.

> Is available a new release:
> https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.3
> Please, considering upgrade
Bumped the version to latest upstream, new SRPM: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/bitcoinj/bitcoinj-0.14.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

have you time for review this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749 ?
thanks in advance

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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
     "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
     268 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/gil/1330316-bitcoinj/licensecheck.txt

 This file is under BSD license bitcoinj-0.14.3/core/src/main/java/org/bitcoinj/crypto/PBKDF2SHA512.java and
 License field should be: ASL 2.0 and BSD and MIT
 
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
 Please, add an comment/s
[?]: 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 10240 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: 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]: 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
     bitcoinj-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
 Please, add an comment/s
[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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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).
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: bitcoinj-0.14.3-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          bitcoinj-javadoc-0.14.3-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          bitcoinj-0.14.3-1.fc25.src.rpm
bitcoinj.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
bitcoinj.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
bitcoinj.src:52: W: macro-in-comment %{commit0}
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
bitcoinj.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Requires
--------
bitcoinj (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools
    mvn(com.google.code.findbugs:jsr305)
    mvn(com.google.guava:guava)
    mvn(com.google.protobuf:protobuf-java)
    mvn(com.lambdaworks:scrypt)
    mvn(com.squareup.okhttp:okhttp)
    mvn(net.jcip:jcip-annotations)
    mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk16)
    mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api)

bitcoinj-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-tools



Provides
--------
bitcoinj:
    bitcoinj
    mvn(org.bitcoinj:bitcoinj-core)
    mvn(org.bitcoinj:bitcoinj-core:pom:)
    mvn(org.bitcoinj:bitcoinj-parent:pom:)

bitcoinj-javadoc:
    bitcoinj-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/archive/v0.14.3.tar.gz#/bitcoinj-0.14.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 16fd58db37db26d718a2de1a6974d8fa5ecc41a4ddaf1a2a5082bbfea0ca5fdf
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 16fd58db37db26d718a2de1a6974d8fa5ecc41a4ddaf1a2a5082bbfea0ca5fdf


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1330316 --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
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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
     "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
     268 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/gil/1330316-bitcoinj/licensecheck.txt

 This file is under BSD license bitcoinj-0.14.3/core/src/main/java/org/bitcoinj/crypto/PBKDF2SHA512.java and
 License field should be: ASL 2.0 and BSD and MIT
 
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
 Please, add an comment/s

[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
 Please, add an comment/s

the comments should be added in the spec file

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #10)
> Issues:
> 
> [!]: 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", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
>      "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
>      268 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/gil/1330316-bitcoinj/licensecheck.txt
> 
>  This file is under BSD license
> bitcoinj-0.14.3/core/src/main/java/org/bitcoinj/crypto/PBKDF2SHA512.java and
>  License field should be: ASL 2.0 and BSD and MIT

Sorry, the license field is correct use ASL 2.0 and MIT
Remains to resolve the problems reported above ( Comment#10 )

> [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>     must be documented in the spec.
> Please, add an comment/s

Added comments in the spec file.

> [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
>     justified.
> Please, add an comment/s

The latest upstream 0.14.3 include copyright header except generated files for all the files we ship in the RPM.


Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/bitcoinj/bitcoinj.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/bitcoinj/bitcoinj-0.14.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

Approved

Thanks for the review

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/bitcoinj