Bug 1982370

This package built on koji:  https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=71892511

includes fixes from bug #1256390 and bug #1217904

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=__closed__&classification=Fedora&component=fedora-review-plugin-java&list_id=12010354&product=Fedora&product=Fedora%20EPEL&query_format=advanced

    Source0:        https://github.com/msimacek/%{name}/archive/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz

I just check the upstream URL, it moves to https://github.com/fedora-java/fedora-review-plugin-java

    SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/fedora-review-plugin-java-4.6.1-9.fc29.src.rpm

why "fc29" though?

also the new upstream seems to have applied the patches, so you probably need to remove it.

in https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fedora-review-plugin-java/branches the branch with sources is f29 

git checkout f29 && fedpkg srpm 


Source0 fixed

Seems Good, 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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or
     generated". 4 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/chronoelves/1982370-fedora-review-plugin-
     java/licensecheck.txt
[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 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

===== 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.
[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.
[-]: 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: fedora-review-plugin-java-4.6.1-9.fc35.noarch.rpm
          fedora-review-plugin-java-4.6.1-9.fc35.src.rpm
fedora-review-plugin-java.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/fedora-java/fedora-review-plugin-java/archive/fedora-review-plugin-java-4.6.1.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : efa958cd6798c58bebe13c7344617d0c9cc8c6f6d164b41512f22d390bbb070a
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : efa958cd6798c58bebe13c7344617d0c9cc8c6f6d164b41512f22d390bbb070a


Requires
--------
fedora-review-plugin-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    fedora-review



Provides
--------
fedora-review-plugin-java:
    fedora-review-plugin-java



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1982370
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: Haskell, SugarActivity, Java, R, PHP, Perl, Python, C/C++, fonts, Ocaml
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Sry, I need to cancel this review for particular reason.

I see that this package is not maintained and developed by upstream anymore. [1]
Do you suggests that this package has value for java 11 onwards?


[1] https://github.com/fedora-java/fedora-review-plugin-java/issues/1

what this package review have to do with it ? where is written that the package must have a live upstream ?.

Don't have value for java 11 onwards ? if you don't know, why you cancel this review in first place ?

I'm just asking. ;)
Well, I suppose you're right, this package review has nothing to do with it.
This package is APPROVED, and it functions as described.

[x]: Package functions as described.

I tested w/ my package and it's perfectly fine.

Output on review.txt:
   Java:
   [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
   [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools
        (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: javapackages-tools
        (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

built in rawhide, thank you , closing this review request