Bug 1782942

A few comments here from me:

 - Google Code shutdown and the author has moved to BitBucket. 
 - The r1.4 release is the latest non-snapshot release; this is what is present in previous Fedora releases. 
 - The BitBucket 1.4 release was compared against lookaside using meld; only the file paths differed.
 - I need to bump the release and add a changelog message for these cosmetic changes.
 - There's a newer 1.5 release (from 2015) that's in snapshot (pre-release) stage, but no 1.5 release was ever cut as far as I can tell. It has a few minor bug fixes, especially w.r.t. tests. I've decided to stick with 1.4 since that matches what is in maven central currently. 
 - No commits since 2015, and little activity from 2016.

Commit 6071776dba06ebb1be638f42986c1a97a056199d bumps release, adds changelog entry.

SPEC:
https://github.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/blob/master/decentxml/decentxml.spec

SRPM: 
https://github.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/raw/6071776dba06ebb1be638f42986c1a97a056199d/decentxml/decentxml-1.4-20.fc31.src.rpm

Please link the raw spec for fedora review to work.

Ah sorry, so done:

https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/6071776dba06ebb1be638f42986c1a97a056199d/decentxml/decentxml.spec

Spec URL: https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/6071776dba06ebb1be638f42986c1a97a056199d/decentxml/decentxml.spec
SRPM URL: https://github.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/raw/6071776dba06ebb1be638f42986c1a97a056199d/decentxml/decentxml-1.4-20.fc31.src.rpm

The only thing that catches my attention is that it should switch to using %license for installing the license instead of %doc

Issues:
=======
- License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
- Typographical error in URL: bitbucker.org -> bitbucket.org
- Spelling error in description: whitespace -> white-space


If you fix these three minor problems, then this package is APPROVED



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.
[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.
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: 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.
[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]: 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]: 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

===== 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]: 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.
[-]: %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]: 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: decentxml-1.4-20.fc32.noarch.rpm
          decentxml-javadoc-1.4-20.fc32.noarch.rpm
          decentxml-1.4-20.fc32.src.rpm
decentxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white space, white-space, whites pace
decentxml.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml <urlopen error timed out>
decentxml-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml <urlopen error timed out>
decentxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white space, white-space, whites pace
decentxml.src: W: invalid-url URL: https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml <urlopen error timed out>
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.


Source checksums
----------------
http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xmlts20031210.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4f03503040be97dc04eb2fd5c7a448d197e720f069a6c6f33eba1b2c2bb17706
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4f03503040be97dc04eb2fd5c7a448d197e720f069a6c6f33eba1b2c2bb17706
https://bitbucket.org/digulla/decentxml/get/r1.4.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f81e6965f4c7be613ec9159481a9ad55a9515a0c2ad679fdedd3d6e6f88cf191
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f81e6965f4c7be613ec9159481a9ad55a9515a0c2ad679fdedd3d6e6f88cf191


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

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


Provides
--------
decentxml:
    decentxml
    mvn(de.pdark:decentxml)
    mvn(de.pdark:decentxml:pom:)

decentxml-javadoc:
    decentxml-javadoc

I'd imagine that whitespace is an accepted spelling by now but perhaps not... :-) FWIW that section of %description is lifted verbatim from upstream: https://bitbucket.org/digulla/decentxml/src/default/, but I've made that change.  


SPEC:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/51f47ed7a1c2df54b54a6db427819a4d42fc75a6/decentxml/decentxml.spec

SRPM:
https://github.com/cipherboy/fedora-pkg-unretirement/raw/51f47ed7a1c2df54b54a6db427819a4d42fc75a6/decentxml/decentxml-1.4-20.fc31.src.rpm

Alex, you can file the unretirement request for master/f31 now:

https://pagure.io/releng/new_issue?title=Unretirement%20request:%20decentxml&template=package_unretirement

Then you'll also need to do "fedpkg request-branch f31", since the f31 branch doesn't exist yet.

So filed:

https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9107

(In reply to Alex Scheel from comment #10)
> So filed:
> 
> https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9107

Any progress here?

https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/decentxml/pull-request/1

decentxml-1.4-20.fc31 has been pushed to the Fedora 31 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2019-c044572ef8 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 31. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2019-c044572ef8