Bug 529441

SPEC file looks pretty good to me, except I suspect that at least some of the BR's should be R's as well (bouncycastle-mail, icu4j etc.).

Probably true.

Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-0.8.0-2.fc12.src.rpm

* Mon Oct 19 2009 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 0.8.0-2
- Add Requires

Can you resubmit the scratch lucene build? It has disappeared from koji. After that, let me know. I can review this package so it will be ready to go when lucene is officially updated.

lucene 2.4.1 on F-12:

 http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1794228

I made the preliminary review on this package. It needs some work. I also need to see this building in koji in all archs before approving.

* These need to be added otherwise, package will not build in mock and/or will have broken deps:
   BuildRequires:  ant-nodeps
   BuildRequires:  junit
   BuildRequires:  jakarta-commons-logging
   Requires:  jakarta-commons-logging
   export CLASSPATH=$( ... jakarta-commons-logging junit)
You don't necessarily need "Requires: junit". See below.

- Patches should be explained and be submitted to upstream. Since this is a
pure Fedora specific patch we can ignore the upstream part.

* rpmlint says:
   pdfbox.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/pdfbox-0.8.0/RELEASE-NOTES.txt
      This can be corrected in %prep easily via sed 's|\r||' or similar.

   pdfbox-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development Documentation
      Simply use "Documentation"

   pdfbox.src:120: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
      This can be ignored.

* This package includes fonts that are already available in Fedora. This is not allowed by the guidelines. You will need to patch the source to remove these fonts from the jar file and use the system ones instead. This will require adding
   Requires:   bitstream-vera-sans-fonts
See
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:FontsPolicy

! It would be good to run the supplied tests in %check via "ant test". But for this, you may need to add
   BuildRequires(check):   ant-junit
and *possibly* add this to classpath before you call "ant test"

? Test classes are being packaged (they end up in the final jar). Is this necessary? If yes, then you will need to add
   Requires: junit
If not sure, please contact upstream.

! %attr(-,root,root) is not needed as I explained in the previous review.

ping? any progress?

Yes.  1.0.0 and I'm starting to package that up.  I'm waiting a bit to see if we can get poms added to lucene and bouncycastle.

Orion,
It's been a year. How is this coming?

Slowly.  More deps...

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.3.1-1.fc14.src.rpm

I think this is about right.  Still need apache-rat.

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.4.0-2.fc14.src.rpm

* Tue Dec 27 2010 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 1.4.0-2
- Create sub-packages
- Use depmap file

* Tue Dec 21 2010 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 1.4.0-1
- Update to 1.4.0

* Thu Mar 10 2011 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 1.5.0-1
- Update to 1.5.0

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.5.0-1.fc14.src.rpm

apache-rat is in Fedora now http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/packageinfo?packageID=11713

Orcan, would you do the review?

Sorry guys. I thought we finished this one. I do not have the time to review it at this very moment but I'll try get to it soon, unless someone else picks it up.

Orion, would you please move the build to maven 3 (aka mvn-rpmbuild ) and I'll do the review.

Also a single javadoc subpackage using javadoc:aggregate might be better.

* Fri Jun 3 2011 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 1.5.0-2
- Use maven 3
- Single javadoc package

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.5.0-2.fc15.src.rpm

Comments:
* please update to 1.6.0
* if we don't need the depmap anymore drop it or fix the comment
* ant-nodeps is merged into ant please BR ant
* please use the new name apache-commons-logging not jakarta-commons-logging
* buildroot definition is not needed
* post/postun %update_maven_depmap are no longer needed
* rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT as install first line and the clean section are no longer needed
* please use the new %add_maven_depmap JPP....pom ...jar instead of the old %add_to_maven_depmap
* %defattr(-,root,root,-) are no longer needed
* installing NOTICE.txt README.txt RELEASE-NOTES.txt in main package only should be enough
* I see 
downloadfile:
    [mkdir] Created dir: /home/akurtakov/work/rpmeditor-demo/pdfbox/pdfbox-1.5.0/pdfbox/download
      [get] Getting: http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/com/adobe/pdf/pcfi/2010.08.09/pcfi-2010.08.09.jar
      [get] To: /home/akurtakov/work/rpmeditor-demo/pdfbox/pdfbox-1.5.0/pdfbox/download/pcfi-2010.08.09.jar
in the build log please either patch it out to not be downloaded or stop it in some other way if not needed or whatever solution is best

* Wed Aug 10 2011 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 1.6.0-1
- Update to 1.6.0
- Add pcfi-2010.08.09.jar to sources
- Drop depmap
- Use apache-commons-logging
- Other cleanup

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.6.0-1.fc15.src.rpm

Would you please package pcfi separately with proper license information?
This was discussed on fedora-java channel. Here is the most relevant part:
[21:52] <spot> okay, so it is the font metrics and the cmaps
[21:52] <spot> I would prefer it not be bundled like that
[21:53] <spot> but the licensing seems okay
[21:53] <spot> http://jukka.zitting.name/2009/com.adobe.pdf/LICENSE.txt && http://opensource.adobe.com/wiki/display/cmap/License
[21:54] <akurtakov> yeah, I saw these but I got lost in the details
[21:54] <spot> akurtakov: summary: have orionp make a pcfi package with proper license information included
[21:54] <akurtakov> spot: ok, thanks
[21:54] <spot> then have pdfbox use it normally

Orion, still interested?

Somewhat, just very low priority.  If someone else wants to take this on I'd be more than happy.  I have an initial pcfi package here:

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pcfi.spec
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pcfi-2010.08.09-1.fc15.src.rpm

Not sure what state it is in.

* Mon Oct 24 2011 Orion Poplawski <orion.com> - 1.6.0-2
- BR separately packaged pcfi

http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox.spec
http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/pdfbox-1.6.0-2.fc16.src.rpm

Okay, should be good to go again.

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated



==== Generic ====
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported architecture.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files section. This is OK if packaging
     for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
     Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[x]: MUST 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 %doc.
[x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generates any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint pdfbox-javadoc-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm

pdfbox-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


rpmlint jempbox-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm

jempbox.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C JempBox
jempbox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subproject -> sub project, sub-project, projector
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


rpmlint fontbox-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm

fontbox.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C FontBox
fontbox.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subproject -> sub project, sub-project, projector
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.


rpmlint pdfbox-ant-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint pdfbox-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint pdfbox-app-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint pdfbox-1.6.0-2.fc17.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


rpmlint pdfbox-lucene-1.6.0-2.fc17.noarch.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/akurtakov/tmp/529441/pdfbox-1.6.0-src.zip :
  MD5SUM this package     : 103c620cd58d69f107c9a63f16ba7da7
  MD5SUM upstream package : 103c620cd58d69f107c9a63f16ba7da7

[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.


==== Java ====
[-]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
     removed prior to building
[x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
     symlink)
[x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)


==== Maven ====
[x]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
     Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[x]: MUST pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
[x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
     jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps)
     even when building with ant
[x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

Issues:
* deffattr on the main package can be dropped too but not a blocker

APPROVED

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: pdfbox
Short Description: Java PDF library
Owners: orion
Branches: f16 el6
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

Checked in and built.  Thanks all.