Bug 1836626

Build in rawhide fails with: No matching package to install: 'mvn(org.glassfish.jaxb:jaxb-xjc)'
Did something else get retired in the meantime?

(In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> Build in rawhide fails with: No matching package to install:
> 'mvn(org.glassfish.jaxb:jaxb-xjc)'
> Did something else get retired in the meantime?

The oppisite, in fact! :)
glassfish-jaxb-jxc has been (re-)added to rawhide, but hasn't reached a compose yet.
The dependency should be available in koji (or with --enablerepo local for mock).

The only thing I'm really wondering about is why there need to be two maven jaxb2 plugins (jaxb2-maven-plugin vs. maven-jaxb2-plugin) ...

(In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2)
> (In reply to Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek from comment #1)
> > Build in rawhide fails with: No matching package to install:
> > 'mvn(org.glassfish.jaxb:jaxb-xjc)'
> > Did something else get retired in the meantime?
> 
> The oppisite, in fact! :)
> glassfish-jaxb-jxc has been (re-)added to rawhide, but hasn't reached a
> compose yet.
> The dependency should be available in koji (or with --enablerepo local for
> mock).

Ah, that's why my scratch build passed.


> The only thing I'm really wondering about is why there need to be two maven
> jaxb2 plugins (jaxb2-maven-plugin vs. maven-jaxb2-plugin) ...

Yeh, I was surprised too, but given that I've already descended into java dep hell, I just thought I'd package it all and do the work. Looks like two maven plugins with overlapping functionality:

https://github.com/highsource/maven-jaxb2-plugin
https://github.com/mojohaus/jaxb2-maven-plugin

I will take this review.  I posted a request for reviews swaps a couple of days ago.  Can you take one of them?

https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@lists.fedoraproject.org/thread/NTMOIJGQIQ5Q4AOWEQF3MFYTDD7OP4YI/

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

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

Issues:
=======
- Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
  Note: sonatype-oss-parent is deprecated, you must not depend on it.
  See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
  guidelines/deprecating-packages/

  That's fedora-review text above.  You can probably add this to %prep:

  %pom_remove_parent

  and remove this:

  BuildRequires: mvn(org.sonatype.oss:oss-parent:pom:)

- Not really an issue, just an observation.  The subshell in %build is not
  needed.  Unlike Makefiles, all commands in a section (%build in this case)
  are executed in the same shell.  I personally would remove the parentheses
  and the semicolon at the end of the cd line.  None of them are necessary.

- The comment on patch 2 and the name of patch 2 itself both contain a typo:
  "enconding" should be "encoding".

===== 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. Licenses
     found: "BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License", "Unknown or generated",
     "Apache License 2.0". 298 files have unknown license.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 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]: 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 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.

     The latest version is 0.14.0, but it requires JDK 9 or later to build.
     Since Rawhide still default to JDK 8, the newer version cannot yet be
     packaged.

[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[-]: 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.

     Like other maven projects, the tests are run during the build, so no
     %check script is needed.

[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: maven-jaxb2-plugin-0.13.3-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          maven-jaxb2-plugin-javadoc-0.13.3-1.fc33.noarch.rpm
          maven-jaxb2-plugin-0.13.3-1.fc33.src.rpm
maven-jaxb2-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes
maven-jaxb2-plugin.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
maven-jaxb2-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) schemas -> schema, sachems, schemes
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/highsource/maven-jaxb2-plugin/archive/0.13.3.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : b3d2d5516e0ece348e03d0a4265dca6bb269d5817025ce0ffb7c2462b2e484f0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b3d2d5516e0ece348e03d0a4265dca6bb269d5817025ce0ffb7c2462b2e484f0


Requires
--------
maven-jaxb2-plugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem
    mvn(com.sun.codemodel:codemodel)
    mvn(com.sun.istack:istack-commons-runtime)
    mvn(com.sun.istack:istack-commons-tools)
    mvn(com.sun.xml.bind.external:rngom)
    mvn(com.sun.xml.dtd-parser:dtd-parser)
    mvn(com.sun.xml.fastinfoset:FastInfoset)
    mvn(com.sun.xsom:xsom)
    mvn(javax.xml.bind:jaxb-api)
    mvn(junit:junit)
    mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3)
    mvn(org.apache.maven.plugin-tools:maven-plugin-annotations)
    mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-compat)
    mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-core)
    mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-plugin-api)
    mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-utils)
    mvn(org.glassfish.jaxb:codemodel)
    mvn(org.glassfish.jaxb:jaxb-core)
    mvn(org.glassfish.jaxb:jaxb-runtime)
    mvn(org.glassfish.jaxb:jaxb-xjc)
    mvn(org.glassfish.jaxb:txw2)
    mvn(org.jvnet.staxex:stax-ex)
    mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api)
    mvn(org.sonatype.plexus:plexus-build-api)
    mvn(xml-resolver:xml-resolver)

maven-jaxb2-plugin-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
maven-jaxb2-plugin:
    maven-jaxb2-plugin
    mvn(org.jvnet.jaxb2.maven2:maven-jaxb2-plugin)
    mvn(org.jvnet.jaxb2.maven2:maven-jaxb2-plugin-core)
    mvn(org.jvnet.jaxb2.maven2:maven-jaxb2-plugin-core:pom:)
    mvn(org.jvnet.jaxb2.maven2:maven-jaxb2-plugin-project:pom:)
    mvn(org.jvnet.jaxb2.maven2:maven-jaxb2-plugin-testing)
    mvn(org.jvnet.jaxb2.maven2:maven-jaxb2-plugin-testing:pom:)
    mvn(org.jvnet.jaxb2.maven2:maven-jaxb2-plugin:pom:)
    mvn(org.jvnet.jaxb2.maven2:maven-jaxb22-plugin)
    mvn(org.jvnet.jaxb2.maven2:maven-jaxb22-plugin:pom:)

maven-jaxb2-plugin-javadoc:
    maven-jaxb2-plugin-javadoc



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.5 (5fa5b7e) last change: 2020-02-16
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1836626 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Java, Generic, Shell-api
Disabled plugins: Ruby, Perl, R, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, Python
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Please add a note in the %description about the ohter package.

Thanks for the review Jerry. I've updated the spec/srpm:

Spec URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/maven-jaxb2-plugin/maven-jaxb2-plugin.spec
SRPM URL: https://ankursinha.fedorapeople.org/maven-jaxb2-plugin/maven-jaxb2-plugin-0.13.3-1.fc33.src.rpm


* Sat May 23 2020 Ankur Sinha <ankursinha AT fedoraproject DOT org> - 0.13.3-1
- Update as per review comments
- Correct typo in patch
- Remove deprecated parent pom
- Remove subshell
- Add note about related package

I'm reviewing the ocaml packages now.

Looks good.  This package is APPROVED.

FEDORA-2020-cee0a57c10 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 32. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cee0a57c10

FEDORA-2020-cee0a57c10 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 testing repository.
In short time you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2020-cee0a57c10 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2020-cee0a57c10

See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.

FEDORA-2020-cee0a57c10 has been pushed to the Fedora 32 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.