Bug 2222023

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6161695
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2222023-apache-commons-vfs/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06161695-apache-commons-vfs/fedora-review/review.txt

Please take a look if any issues were found.

---
This comment was created by the fedora-review-service
https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service

If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new
Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.

> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> 
> 
> Issues:
> =======
> - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java
>   to get additional checks
> - Package does not use a name that already exists.
>   Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
>   https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/apache-commons-vfs
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

this review is unretirement.

> - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
>   Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
>   See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
>   guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies

there are bundled jar, but they're not packaged.

> 
> 
> ===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache-2.0", "Unknown or generated". 116 files
>      have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/fedora/didiksupriadi41/2222023-apache-commons-
>      vfs/licensecheck.txt
> [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
> [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>      Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ant.d

I'm not sure about this one. /etc/ant.d is currently owned by ant.

> [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> [x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
> [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
> [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
>      Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs

Do you think it would be appropriate to use '%config(noreplace)' in this context? 
(I'm not entirely sure in my own judgment)

> [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
>      Note: Macros in: apache-commons-vfs (description)

the warning is shown below.
moving %javadoc_package macro to a position immediately preceding %prep should fix it.

> [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [-]: 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.
>      Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 2 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 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]: No %config files under /usr.
> [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
> 
> ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>      Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in apache-
>      commons-vfs-examples , apache-commons-vfs-project
> [?]: 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.
> [-]: %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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
>      publishes signatures.
> [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
>      architectures.
> [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: apache-commons-vfs-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
>           apache-commons-vfs-ant-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
>           apache-commons-vfs-examples-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
>           apache-commons-vfs-project-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
>           apache-commons-vfs-2.9.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
> =========================================================================== rpmlint session starts ===========================================================================
> rpmlint: 2.4.0
> configuration:
>     /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
> rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpkn_8sdia')]
> checks: 31, packages: 5
> 
> apache-commons-vfs.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %javadoc_package
> apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: no-documentation
> apache-commons-vfs-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation
> apache-commons-vfs-project.noarch: W: no-documentation
> apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs
> ============================================ 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ============================================
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
> rpmlint: 2.4.0
> configuration:
>     /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
>     /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
> checks: 31, packages: 4
> 
> apache-commons-vfs-project.noarch: W: no-documentation
> apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: no-documentation
> apache-commons-vfs-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation
> apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs
>  4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 
> 
> 
> 
> Source checksums
> ----------------
> https://downloads.apache.org/commons/KEYS :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4230519a17c7106b4e18cf199dc7224302ac7a225d3a86963d253dd92b8fc638
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4230519a17c7106b4e18cf199dc7224302ac7a225d3a86963d253dd92b8fc638
> https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/source/commons-vfs-2.9.0-src.tar.gz.asc :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : f627c999b2d580db3dbf7305a94ae04f7a3467c33a40a284048157d6ecf69011
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f627c999b2d580db3dbf7305a94ae04f7a3467c33a40a284048157d6ecf69011
> https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/source/commons-vfs-2.9.0-src.tar.gz :
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 3ffa6826aba58316cdee0b89eac67300f14ddea13669fdf72ee6f858b880000f
>   CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ffa6826aba58316cdee0b89eac67300f14ddea13669fdf72ee6f858b880000f
> 
> 
> Requires
> --------
> apache-commons-vfs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless)
>     javapackages-filesystem
>     mvn(commons-logging:commons-logging)
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3)
> 
> apache-commons-vfs-ant (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     apache-commons-vfs
>     config(apache-commons-vfs-ant)
> 
> apache-commons-vfs-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless)
>     javapackages-filesystem
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2)
>     mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient)
> 
> apache-commons-vfs-project (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>     (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless)
>     javapackages-filesystem
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-parent:pom:)
>     mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin)
>     mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin)
> 
> 
> 
> Provides
> --------
> apache-commons-vfs:
>     apache-commons-vfs
>     apache-commons-vfs2
>     mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs)
>     mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs:pom:)
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs)
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2)
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2:pom:)
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs:pom:)
>     osgi(org.apache.commons.vfs2)
> 
> apache-commons-vfs-ant:
>     apache-commons-vfs-ant
>     config(apache-commons-vfs-ant)
> 
> apache-commons-vfs-examples:
>     apache-commons-vfs-examples
>     mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs-examples)
>     mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs-examples:pom:)
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs-examples)
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs-examples:pom:)
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-examples)
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-examples:pom:)
>     osgi(org.apache.commons.vfs2)
> 
> apache-commons-vfs-project:
>     apache-commons-vfs-project
>     mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-project:pom:)
> 
> 
> 
> Jar and class files in source
> -----------------------------
> ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar
> ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar
> ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar
> ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar
> ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar
> ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar
> ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar
> ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar
> ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar
> 
> 
> Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2222023
> Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Java
> Disabled plugins: R, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity
> Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH

Thank you for the review!

(In reply to Didik Supriadi from comment #2)
> > [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> >      Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ant.d
> 
> I'm not sure about this one. /etc/ant.d is currently owned by ant.

Hmmm, apache-commons-vfs-ant does not have "Requires: ant".  I think that is wrong.  I have added it.

> > [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
> >      Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs
> 
> Do you think it would be appropriate to use '%config(noreplace)' in this
> context? 
> (I'm not entirely sure in my own judgment)

I'm not sure either, but I added it.

> > [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
> >      Note: Macros in: apache-commons-vfs (description)
> 
> the warning is shown below.
> moving %javadoc_package macro to a position immediately preceding %prep
> should fix it.

Thanks!  I have moved it.

I have uploaded new spec and srpm files to the same URLs as before.

LGTM, approved

Thank you!

FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 38. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1

FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1 \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1

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

FEDORA-2023-d8e0f484f1 has been pushed to the Fedora 38 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.