Bug 2262418

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.
[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]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 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 287 bytes in 1 files.
[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:
[-]: 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.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
     publishes signatures.
     Note: gpgverify is not used.
[!]: %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]: 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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[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
-------
Checking: plexus-testing-1.3.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          plexus-testing-javadoc-1.3.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm
          plexus-testing-1.3.0-1.fc40.src.rpm
===================================== rpmlint session starts ====================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.11/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/tmps5j1ezbq')]
checks: 31, packages: 3

plexus-testing-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 96%
====== 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s =====




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
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: 32, packages: 2

plexus-testing-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 96%
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/codehaus-plexus/plexus-testing/archive/plexus-testing-1.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 4274def676a736ed8933f16fbc767f2a60e67948abc1c8d5e363008c3c5a78f9
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4274def676a736ed8933f16fbc767f2a60e67948abc1c8d5e363008c3c5a78f9


Requires
--------
plexus-testing (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    (java-headless or java-21-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless)
    javapackages-filesystem
    mvn(com.google.inject:guice)
    mvn(org.eclipse.sisu:org.eclipse.sisu.inject)
    mvn(org.eclipse.sisu:org.eclipse.sisu.plexus)
    mvn(org.junit.jupiter:junit-jupiter-api)

plexus-testing-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
plexus-testing:
    mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-testing)
    mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-testing:pom:)
    plexus-testing

plexus-testing-javadoc:
    plexus-testing-javadoc


=============
REVIEW PASSED
=============

The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/plexus-testing

Bodhi update for rawhide: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-9ab4e5bdd2

FEDORA-2024-4ca893bdba has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4ca893bdba

FEDORA-2024-4ca893bdba has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository.
Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command:
`sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2024-4ca893bdba \*`
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2024-4ca893bdba

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

FEDORA-2024-4ca893bdba (plexus-testing-1.3.0-1.fc39) has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository.
If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.