Bug 789611

This package did not build for me.  This symlink for jsr-311 is wrong in the spec file:

ln -s /usr/share/java/jboss/jaxrs-api.jar lib/jaxrs/jsr311-api-1.1.jar

I changed it to /usr/share/java/jsr-311.jar and got a successful build.  Please fix this first, and I'll continue the review in the morning.

The issue in comment #1 has been fixed. The updated spec and SRPM are available here:

http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/jackson/3

Updated the package to use the latest upstream version 1.9.4. The updated spec and SRPM are available here:

http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/jackson/1.9.4-1

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output [1]:
jackson.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Jackson
jackson.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jackson-1.9.4/release-notes/lgpl/LGPL2.1
jackson-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
jackson-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jackson-javadoc-1.9.4/release-notes/lgpl/LGPL2.1
jackson.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Jackson

[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x]  Buildroot definition is not present
[x]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [2]
License type: ASL 2.0 or LGPLv2
[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 %doc.
[x]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL. [3]
[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x]  Package uses %global not %define
[x]  If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[!]  If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building[1]
[x]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[!]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar [2]
[x]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x]  pom files has correct add_maven_depmap

=== Maven ===
[x]  Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-]  If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-]  If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x]  Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]  Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro

=== Other suggestions ===
[x]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.


=== Issues ===
[1] The incorrect FSF address in the lgpl license file should  be corrected by the upstream maintainer.  Please notify them of this error.  The correct address is:  51 Franklin Street, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301
[2] The license is given as ASL 2.0 in the spec file, but appears to be "ASL 2.0 or LGPLv2"
[3] This is a minor thing, but it is preferred that macros not be used in source URLs, so that they can easily be copied and pasted into a browser or curl/wget command.

Please correct #2 and #3, and I will approve the package.

Thanks for your comments Andy.

Sent an mail to dev.org for #1:

http://markmail.org/search/?q=list%3Aorg.codehaus.jackson.dev#query:list%3Aorg.codehaus.jackson.dev+page:1+mid:mv4oypqh3kvlb2ou+state:results

Fixed #2 and #3. The updated spec and SRPM are available here:

http://jhernand.fedorapeople.org/rpms/jackson/1.9.4-2

Did a Koji build to verify that it builds correctly:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3792234

Ok, the spec looks good now.

APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jackson
Short Description: Jackson Java JSON-processor 
Owners: jhernand
Branches: f17
InitialCC: goldmann

Git done (by process-git-requests).

jackson-1.9.4-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jackson-1.9.4-2.fc17

jackson-1.9.4-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.