Bug 1868044

 - Please bump to 4.0.0


Package 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised"
     License". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/jaxb-istack-commons/review-
     jaxb-istack-commons/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/java/istack-
     commons(istack-commons-maven-plugin, import-properties-plugin, istack-
     commons-soimp, istack-commons-runtime, istack-commons-buildtools,
     istack-commons-tools, istack-commons-test), /usr/share/maven-
     poms/istack-commons(istack-commons-maven-plugin, import-properties-
     plugin, istack-commons-soimp, istack-commons, istack-commons-runtime,
     istack-commons-buildtools, istack-commons-tools, istack-commons-test)
[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.
[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 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]: 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:
[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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in istack-
     commons-maven-plugin , import-properties-plugin , jaxb-istack-commons-
     buildtools , jaxb-istack-commons-runtime , jaxb-istack-commons-soimp ,
     jaxb-istack-commons-test , jaxb-istack-commons-tools
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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.
     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.
[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.

===== 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: jaxb-istack-commons-3.0.11-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          istack-commons-maven-plugin-3.0.11-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          import-properties-plugin-3.0.11-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jaxb-istack-commons-buildtools-3.0.11-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jaxb-istack-commons-runtime-3.0.11-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jaxb-istack-commons-soimp-3.0.11-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jaxb-istack-commons-test-3.0.11-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jaxb-istack-commons-tools-3.0.11-2.fc34.noarch.rpm
          jaxb-istack-commons-3.0.11-2.fc34.src.rpm
jaxb-istack-commons.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C iStack Common Utility Code
jaxb-istack-commons.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided istack-commons-javadoc
jaxb-istack-commons.noarch: W: no-documentation
istack-commons-maven-plugin.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C istack-commons Maven Mojo
istack-commons-maven-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
import-properties-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) istack -> stack, i stack, is tack
import-properties-plugin.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C istack-commons import properties plugin
import-properties-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US istack -> stack, i stack, is tack
import-properties-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
jaxb-istack-commons-buildtools.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C istack-commons buildtools
jaxb-istack-commons-buildtools.noarch: W: no-documentation
jaxb-istack-commons-runtime.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C istack-commons runtime
jaxb-istack-commons-runtime.noarch: W: no-documentation
jaxb-istack-commons-soimp.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C istack-commons soimp
jaxb-istack-commons-soimp.noarch: W: no-documentation
jaxb-istack-commons-test.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C istack-commons test
jaxb-istack-commons-test.noarch: W: no-documentation
jaxb-istack-commons-tools.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C istack-commons tools
jaxb-istack-commons-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation
jaxb-istack-commons.src: W: summary-not-capitalized C iStack Common Utility Code
9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 20 warnings.

Thank you for the review!

I have not updated to 4.0.0 yet since that's not "ready for public consumption" and has not been released to maven central yet:
https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/com.sun.istack/istack-commons

> [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
>      Provides are present.

Could you please check this? Since this *is* a rename request after all :)

My bad I didn't catch that.

%global obs_vr 3.0.11-2

# package renamed in fedora 33, remove in fedora 35
Provides:       istack-commons = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes:      istack-commons < %{obs_vr}

# javadoc subpackage is currently not built
Obsoletes:      istack-commons-javadoc < %{obs_vr}


LGTM: obs_vr is one release above istack-commons, and it provides %{version}-%{release} for the current package.

No problem, thanks for checking!

https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27951
https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/27952

(fedscm-admin):  The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jaxb-istack-commons

Built for rawhide:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601955
And for fedora 33:
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601956

I submitted an update and a buildroot override for f33 and retired the obsoleted package in both these branches.