Bug 2346064

Copr build:
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8662653
(succeeded)

Review template:
https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2346064-woodstox-core/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08662653-woodstox-core/fedora-review/review.txt

Found issues:

- License file ADDITIONAL_LICENSE_INFO is not marked as %license
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/woodstox-core
  Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names

Please know that there can be false-positives.

---
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
[ ] = Manual review needed


Notes:
======
* This is an unretirment of an existing package.

Issues:
=======


===== 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 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 5123 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[?]: 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.
[!]: %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: woodstox-core-7.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          woodstox-core-javadoc-7.1.0-1.fc43.noarch.rpm
          woodstox-core-7.1.0-1.fc43.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.5.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/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/tmp6ohfmrp8')]
checks: 32, packages: 3

woodstox-core-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99%
 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 13 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.5 s 




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.7.0
configuration:
    /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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

woodstox-core-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99%
woodstox-core-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/woodstox-core/copy.svg
woodstox-core-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/woodstox-core/legal/LICENSE
woodstox-core-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/woodstox-core/link.svg
woodstox-core-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/woodstox-core/script.js
woodstox-core-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/woodstox-core/search-page.js
woodstox-core-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/woodstox-core/search.js
 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 1 warnings, 8 filtered, 6 badness; has taken 0.1 s 



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/FasterXML/woodstox/archive/woodstox-core-7.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2cbcd0721c8129bc109638dbe08a9078551046ab4c6c238e61dce8d8cfb6d573
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2cbcd0721c8129bc109638dbe08a9078551046ab4c6c238e61dce8d8cfb6d573


Requires
--------
woodstox-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-filesystem
    mvn(org.codehaus.woodstox:stax2-api)

woodstox-core-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-filesystem



Provides
--------
woodstox-core:
    mvn(com.fasterxml.woodstox:woodstox-core)
    mvn(com.fasterxml.woodstox:woodstox-core:pom:)
    woodstox-core

woodstox-core-javadoc:
    woodstox-core-javadoc



Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2346064
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Java, Shell-api, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, R, Python, Perl, Haskell
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH

====================================================================================

Review PASSED.

Unretirement ticket opened: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/12593