Bug 1758686

I was able to successfully build in my copr: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/build/1046075/

This package is required by jboss-logging-tools to work.

To be clear to anyone looking here: this is a dependency of jboss-logging-tools that existed when jboss-logging-tools was present and was orphaned along side jboss-logging-tools. 

Original package: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jdeparser

I've updated the releng ticket to match saying I'll take both: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8859

I'll take a look at this one, as well.

Initial comments:

1) Missing changelog entry + message for the new release. It can be something as simple as "Release bump after package unretirement.".

2) The Source0 url can be improved here as well:

Source0:          %{url}/archive/%{namedversion}/%{name}-%{namedversion}.tar.gz

The rest looks like a pretty standard package.

I'll do the final review tomorrow morning.

Thank you, Fabio!

I have addressed both your comments! :)

https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/build/1046114/

Can we update the package to the latest version (2.0.3) as well?

I have the latest 2.0.3 build available here: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/build/1050493/

Great, thanks. I'll go through the review now.

Also, please always paste these links in this format when updating the package:

Spec URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01050493-jdeparser/jdeparser.spec
SRPM URL: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01050493-jdeparser/jdeparser-2.0.3-1.fc32.src.rpm

Automated tools (like fedora-review) find them like this.

There are superfluous BuildRequires listed in the .spec file (see the third "issue" below).
Please fix that before you import the package to fedora.

Otherwise, TL;DR:

- License correct
- latest version is packaged
- package uses standard Java macros for maven packaging


Package APPROVED (but remove the unnecessary BRs before importing it into dist-git).

Full review below.





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

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


Issues:
=======
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java
  to get additional checks

(This plugin doesn't exist anymore.)

- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jdeparser
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

(This is a package re-review for unretirement, so this is expected.)

- There are unnecessary BuildRequires. After regenerating them with the
  build.log output from a successful build, these three are left, the others
  are superfluous and can be removed:

BuildRequires:    maven-local
BuildRequires:    mvn(junit:junit)
BuildRequires:    mvn(org.jboss:jboss-parent:pom:)


===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
     upstream sources. 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
[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.
[?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[-]: 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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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:
[-]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
     Note: Can't find any BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?)

===== 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
[-]: 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.
[y]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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.

===== 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: jdeparser-2.0.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          jdeparser-javadoc-2.0.3-1.fc32.noarch.rpm
          jdeparser-2.0.3-1.fc32.src.rpm
jdeparser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codemodel -> code model, code-model, remodel
jdeparser.noarch: W: no-documentation
jdeparser.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codemodel -> code model, code-model, remodel
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_GB.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
perl: warning: Setting locale failed.
perl: warning: Please check that your locale settings:
	LANGUAGE = (unset),
	LC_ALL = (unset),
	LC_CTYPE = "C.UTF-8",
	LANG = "en_GB.UTF-8"
    are supported and installed on your system.
perl: warning: Falling back to the standard locale ("C").
jdeparser-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jdeparser/jdeparser2 <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
jdeparser.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US codemodel -> code model, code-model, remodel
jdeparser.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/jdeparser/jdeparser2 <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known>
jdeparser.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/jdeparser/jdeparser2/archive/2.0.3.Final/jdeparser-2.0.3.Final.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 8861b3f8b3d75246ae39e5c942cb96efb6a3aa6dff626b81dafb4a78b0867ffc
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8861b3f8b3d75246ae39e5c942cb96efb6a3aa6dff626b81dafb4a78b0867ffc


Requires
--------
jdeparser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem

jdeparser-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
jdeparser:
    jdeparser
    mvn(org.jboss.jdeparser:jdeparser)
    mvn(org.jboss.jdeparser:jdeparser:pom:)

jdeparser-javadoc:
    jdeparser-javadoc



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1758686
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }}
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Java
Disabled plugins: Python, Ocaml, Haskell, R, Perl, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++, PHP
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thanks for the approval, @Fabio.

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #9)

> 
> - There are unnecessary BuildRequires. After regenerating them with the
>   build.log output from a successful build, these three are left, the others
>   are superfluous and can be removed:
> 
> BuildRequires:    maven-local
> BuildRequires:    mvn(junit:junit)
> BuildRequires:    mvn(org.jboss:jboss-parent:pom:)
> 

Yes, even I got this list. However, I had to add them back to avoid the following failures:

apiviz: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01046069-jdeparser/builder-live.log.gz
jdepend: https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/dmoluguw/jboss-logging-tools/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/01046071-jdeparser/builder-live.log.gz

This is very strange.

I've rebuilt an .src.rpm without these BRs in the .spec file, and a local mock build passes ...

Maybe the dependencies were necessary for 2.0.0, but are no longer required for 2.0.3?

hmmm. That was weird. I removed the unnecessary BRs now: https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jdeparser/c/98d46c4ae976426110d646062ee25e55c2c4970e?branch=master

Closing this ticket since I was able to rebuild the package and landed in rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38150832

Thanks for the review, Fabio!

Cheers,
Dinesh