Bug 821283

*** Bug 819344 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gsbase.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/gsbase-2.0.1-1.fc18.src.rpm

Package reviewed manually + fedora-review tool

[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review.

Rpmlint
-------
Checking: gsbase-2.0.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
          gsbase-javadoc-2.0.1-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint gsbase gsbase-javadoc
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines

[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption

[OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines 

[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .

[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 

[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English

[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.

[OK] MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use sha256sum for this task as it is used by the sources file once imported into git. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this.

http://downloads.sourceforge.net/gsbase/gsbase-2.0.1.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a90e173a63dcb0f2a930304c39fd8df54d4d291d4c86374375a48e339933017f
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a90e173a63dcb0f2a930304c39fd8df54d4d291d4c86374375a48e339933017f
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/gsbase/gsbase/2.0.1/gsbase-2.0.1.pom :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 566509ce2266a9f0880cf20bef541819367e1e9bc7f115e973e242be31bbf712
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 566509ce2266a9f0880cf20bef541819367e1e9bc7f115e973e242be31bbf712

[OK] MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. 

[OK] MUST: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.

[OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries

[OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. 

[OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example.

[OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. 

[OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content.

[OK] MUST: Packages must NOT contain any .la libtool archives, these must be removed in the spec if they are built

[OK] MUST: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

Java
========
Java:
[OK] MUST: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
     Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
     pulled in by maven-local

[OK] MUST: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.

[OK] MUST: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage

[OK] MUST: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils

[OK] MUST: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

[OK] MUST: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

[OK] MUST: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI


Maven
======
[OK] MUST: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used

[OK] MUST: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
     utils for %update_maven_depmap macro

[OK] MUST: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun

[OK] MUST: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms

Should
========
[OK] MUST: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file

[OK] MUST: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag

[OK] MUST: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

[OK] MUST: Buildroot is not present

[OK] MUST: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)

[OK] MUST: Dist tag is present.

[OK] MUST: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.

[OK] MUST: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.

[OK] MUST: SourceX is a working URL.

[OK] MUST: Spec use %global instead of %define.


Suggestions:
===============
- Please consider talking with upstream to include a license document for ASL.
- Maven packages should use new style packaging
  Note: If possible update your package to latest guidelines
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven

All above suggestions can be worked in parallel of packaging.

Final status: APPROVED.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: gsbase
Short Description: A collection of java utility classes
Owners: gil
Branches: f18 f19 f20
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

gsbase-2.0.1-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gsbase-2.0.1-1.fc19

gsbase-2.0.1-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/gsbase-2.0.1-1.fc18

gsbase-2.0.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.

gsbase-2.0.1-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.

gsbase-2.0.1-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.