Bug 2141767

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", "GNU General Public License, Version
     2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 only". 6 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/jvanek/Desktop/2141767-openjdk-asmtools7/licensecheck.txt
[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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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 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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

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

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
     Note: Could not download Source0:
     https://github.com/openjdk/asmtools/archive/f40a2c014cfd32eb6cc1e1c6c4264a0411fe0415/openjdk-
     asmtools-f40a2c0.tar.xz
     See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
     guidelines/SourceURL/
[x]: 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.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %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]: SourceX is a working URL.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified.

Java:
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI

===== 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
-------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.2.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
    /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 32, packages: 2

openjdk-asmtools7-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs: 100%
openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openjdk-asmtools7-jasm
openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openjdk-asmtools7-jcdec
openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openjdk-asmtools7-jcoder
openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openjdk-asmtools7-jdec
openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openjdk-asmtools7-jdis
openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/openjdk-asmtools7/LICENSE
openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.0.b10-0.4.20210610.gitf40a2c0 ['7.0.b10-0.5.20210610.gitf40a2c0.fc36', '7.0.b10-0.5.20210610.gitf40a2c0']
openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: E: description-line-too-long AsmTools helps develop tools to create proper and improper Java '.class' files. for jdk11 and down
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.7 s 



Requires
--------
openjdk-asmtools7 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (java-headless or java-17-headless)
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem

openjdk-asmtools7-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
openjdk-asmtools7:
    mvn(org.openjdk.asmtools:asmtools-core)
    mvn(org.openjdk.asmtools:asmtools-core:pom:)
    openjdk-asmtools7

openjdk-asmtools7-javadoc:
    openjdk-asmtools7-javadoc



Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2141767 -m fedora-36-x86_64
Buildroot used: fedora-36-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Java
Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, C/C++, PHP, R, Ocaml, Python, Perl, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH



requesting pkg exception: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49604

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94826238

https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94827073

fix was needed.

FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e

FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656

FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656

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

FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e

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

FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.

FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.