Bug 977017

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dozer.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dozer-5.4.0-1.fc20.src.rpm

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8721369

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

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed

Issues
======
- According to http://dozer.sourceforge.net/, there's a newer version available
- The LICENSE.md file contains only the license header, but not the full text,
  you should query upstream to include full text and in the meantime include it
  yourself as separate source file.

Have you tried building the eclipse plugin? Can you put a comment in the
specfile about it (why it's not built, what's missing).


===== 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.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 198 files have unknown license.
     Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/msimacek/reviews/977017-dozer/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/dozer
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms/dozer
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: 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 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: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) 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 %{_mavenpomdir} 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in dozer-
     javadoc
[?]: Package functions as described.
[!]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[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: dozer-5.4.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          dozer-javadoc-5.4.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          dozer-5.4.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
Cannot parse rpmlint output:


Requires
--------
dozer-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils

dozer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(commons-beanutils:commons-beanutils)
    mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3)
    mvn(org.slf4j:jcl-over-slf4j)
    mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api)
    mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-log4j12)



Provides
--------
dozer-javadoc:
    dozer-javadoc

dozer:
    dozer
    mvn(net.sf.dozer:dozer)
    mvn(net.sf.dozer:dozer-parent:pom:)
    mvn(net.sf.dozer:dozer:pom:)
    osgi(net.sf.dozer.dozer)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/DozerMapper/dozer/archive/v5.4.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 95cc13a9e929eca0d9a5cb3bd17c91739973f3be32476b58a960a57a144dd0e0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 95cc13a9e929eca0d9a5cb3bd17c91739973f3be32476b58a960a57a144dd0e0


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 977017
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #2)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> Issues
> ======
> - According to http://dozer.sourceforge.net/, there's a newer version
> available
> - The LICENSE.md file contains only the license header, but not the full
> text,
>   you should query upstream to include full text and in the meantime include
> it
>   yourself as separate source file.
> 
Done, https://github.com/DozerMapper/dozer/issues/228
> Have you tried building the eclipse plugin? Can you put a comment in the
> specfile about it (why it's not built, what's missing).
Done, for eclipse plugin see https://github.com/DozerMapper/dozer/issues/209
in near future should be in a separate project

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dozer.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/dozer-5.5.1-1.fc20.src.rpm

- update to 5.5.1, this release use Spring Framework 4.0.8

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=8752670

Looks ok now, APPROVED

Thanks for the review!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: dozer
Short Description: Java Bean to Java Bean mapper
Upstream URL: http://dozer.sourceforge.net/
Owners: gil
Branches: f21
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

dozer-5.5.1-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/dozer-5.5.1-1.fc21

dozer-5.5.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

dozer-5.5.1-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.