Bug 1360292

Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15023310

hi
if you have time, can you take this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359797 ?
thanks in advance

Please use: %mvn_build -f -- -Pupdate-protobuf
for re-generate java code

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> Please use: %mvn_build -f -- -Pupdate-protobuf
> for re-generate java code

you should change in maven-antrun-plugin configuration executable path

Another trick, for run test suite (if possible):
%pom_change_dep org.easytesting:fest-assert-core org.assertj:assertj-core:2.0.0
find ./ -name "*.java" -exec sed -i "s/org.fest.assertions/org.assertj.core/g" {} +

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 129 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1360292
     -multibit-hardware/licensecheck.txt

    Without taking into account the generated files with protobuf,
    you should point out to upstream which many of java files have no header license
    
[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 20480 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
 See Comment#3 and Comment#4
[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
     multibit-hardware-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.
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
 See Comment#5
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: multibit-hardware-0.7.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          multibit-hardware-javadoc-0.7.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          multibit-hardware-0.7.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
multibit-hardware-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-tools

multibit-hardware (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools
    mvn(com.google.code.findbugs:annotations)
    mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3)
    mvn(org.hid4java:hid4java)
    mvn(org.multibit:commons)
    mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api)



Provides
--------
multibit-hardware-javadoc:
    multibit-hardware-javadoc

multibit-hardware:
    multibit-hardware
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:core)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:core:pom:)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:keepkey)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:keepkey:pom:)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:parent:pom:)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:trezor)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:trezor:pom:)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/keepkey/multibit-hardware/archive/0.7.0.tar.gz#/multibit-hardware-0.7.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 624f664e4e3e23f21ee24dff88f5e7e0d401a3c121e870793fd8dca7ee702b34
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 624f664e4e3e23f21ee24dff88f5e7e0d401a3c121e870793fd8dca7ee702b34


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1360292 --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

Created attachment 1184267 [details]
licensecheck.txt

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> Please use: %mvn_build -f -- -Pupdate-protobuf
> for re-generate java code

The protobuf source files are git submodules and are not included in the archive. I am not sure if there is an easy way to re-gernerate the Java code.

$ cat multibit-hardware-0.7.0/.gitmodules
[submodule "trezor-common"]
	path = trezor/src/main/trezor-common
	url = https://github.com/trezor/trezor-common.git
[submodule "hid4java/src/main/cpp/hidapi"]
	path = hid4java/src/main/cpp/hidapi
	url = https://github.com/signal11/hidapi

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2)
> hi
> if you have time, can you take this
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359797 ?
> thanks in advance

I will review it in my next available Fedora time slot.

(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #8)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)
> > Please use: %mvn_build -f -- -Pupdate-protobuf
> > for re-generate java code
> 
> The protobuf source files are git submodules and are not included in the
> archive. I am not sure if there is an easy way to re-gernerate the Java code.
> 
> $ cat multibit-hardware-0.7.0/.gitmodules
> [submodule "trezor-common"]
> 	path = trezor/src/main/trezor-common
> 	url = https://github.com/trezor/trezor-common.git
> [submodule "hid4java/src/main/cpp/hidapi"]
> 	path = hid4java/src/main/cpp/hidapi
> 	url = https://github.com/signal11/hidapi

Seem vailable in this sub folders:
keepkey/src/main/keepkey-common/protob/
... or no? are not the same?

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #10)
> Seem vailable in this sub folders:
> keepkey/src/main/keepkey-common/protob/
> ... or no? are not the same?

They are different.

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6)
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
>      found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 129 files have
>      unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1360292
>      -multibit-hardware/licensecheck.txt
> 
>     Without taking into account the generated files with protobuf,
>     you should point out to upstream which many of java files have no header
> license

https://github.com/keepkey/multibit-hardware/issues/33

can you not perform the test suite?

Test suite, as in Maven tests? I am about to upload a new SPEC file with the trezor protobuf files included and enabled unit tests.

Updated the SPEC with re-generate the Java source files and unit tests enabled.

Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-hardware/multibit-hardware.spec
SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-hardware/multibit-hardware-0.7.0-2.fc24.src.rpm
Koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=15034776

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: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 134 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1360292
     -multibit-hardware/licensecheck.txt
 As above
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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
     multibit-hardware-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.
[-]: %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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: multibit-hardware-0.7.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
          multibit-hardware-javadoc-0.7.0-2.fc26.noarch.rpm
          multibit-hardware-0.7.0-2.fc26.src.rpm
multibit-hardware.src:40: W: setup-not-quiet
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.



Requires
--------
multibit-hardware-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-tools

multibit-hardware (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools
    mvn(com.google.code.findbugs:annotations)
    mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3)
    mvn(org.hid4java:hid4java)
    mvn(org.multibit:commons)
    mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api)



Provides
--------
multibit-hardware-javadoc:
    multibit-hardware-javadoc

multibit-hardware:
    multibit-hardware
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:core)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:core:pom:)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:keepkey)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:keepkey:pom:)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:parent:pom:)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:trezor)
    mvn(org.multibit.hd.hardware:trezor:pom:)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/keepkey/multibit-hardware/archive/0.7.0.tar.gz#/multibit-hardware-0.7.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 624f664e4e3e23f21ee24dff88f5e7e0d401a3c121e870793fd8dca7ee702b34
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 624f664e4e3e23f21ee24dff88f5e7e0d401a3c121e870793fd8dca7ee702b34
https://github.com/trezor/trezor-common/archive/b29db007f94fe00c20674fa18029a6fd10396c02.tar.gz#/trezor-common-b29db00.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : e33f4e8ab3e54d1129f4ea1ba110f45cbd8909b5837c34b932069e950e808a78
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e33f4e8ab3e54d1129f4ea1ba110f45cbd8909b5837c34b932069e950e808a78


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1360292 --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

Appoved

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #16)
> Appoved

Thanks, reviewing HtmlUnit is my next TODO

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