Bug 991621

I can take this.

There are a few issues to correct here:

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

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

===== MUST items =====

Generic:
[!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
     
     NB:  we CANNOT patch COPYING (as on line 41 of the spec) for legal reasons; 
     please leave it as-is.  See 
     
        https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
     
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)
     (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have
     unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/wibenton/devel/review/991621-remotetea/licensecheck.txt
     
     The GPL-licensed code is from Classpath, which has a linking exception, so it's
     OK to say the whole package is LGPL-licensed.
     
     I've reported the address change upstream:
     
        https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/remotetea/ticket/2
    
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.

     src/org/acplt/oncrpc/apps/jrpcgen/JrpcgenSHA.java is apparently borrowed from Classpath
    
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 71680 bytes in 4 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 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]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[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)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
     Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
     or update to latest guidelines
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.

     see above re: patching COPYING
[-]: 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.

     There are several testing mains in remotetea/src/tests/; this package should run them

[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 tarball generation or download is documented.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: remotetea-1.0.7-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
          remotetea-javadoc-1.0.7-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
          remotetea-1.0.7-1.fc19.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint remotetea-javadoc remotetea
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



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

remotetea (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
remotetea-javadoc:
    remotetea-javadoc

remotetea:
    mvn(org.acplt:jrpcgen)
    mvn(org.acplt:oncrpc)
    mvn(org.acplt:portmap)
    remotetea



Source checksums
----------------
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/acplt/oncrpc/1.0.7/oncrpc-1.0.7.pom :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a33bb2dc62417df1314b8df3549dd2e308e5960f30da83d6d3804fc42db4b5ee
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a33bb2dc62417df1314b8df3549dd2e308e5960f30da83d6d3804fc42db4b5ee
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/remotetea/remotetea-src-1.0.7.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d28c78af62fdad68eadfde03384a48be1498477026b86e204a3558363854da4e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d28c78af62fdad68eadfde03384a48be1498477026b86e204a3558363854da4e


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 991621
Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG

(In reply to Will Benton from comment #2)
> There are a few issues to correct here:
> 
> Generic:
> [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
>      other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
>      Guidelines.
>      
>      NB:  we CANNOT patch COPYING (as on line 41 of the spec) for legal
> reasons; 
>      please leave it as-is.  See 
>      
>        
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#incorrect-fsf-address
>      
> [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>      Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
>      "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "LGPL (v2 or later)
>      (with incorrect FSF address)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have
>      unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>      /home/wibenton/devel/review/991621-remotetea/licensecheck.txt
>      
>      The GPL-licensed code is from Classpath, which has a linking exception,
> so it's
>      OK to say the whole package is LGPL-licensed.
>      
>      I've reported the address change upstream:
>      
>         https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/remotetea/ticket/2
>     

> [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> 
>      src/org/acplt/oncrpc/apps/jrpcgen/JrpcgenSHA.java is apparently
> borrowed from Classpath
> 
is not the same class:

 * The original file gnu.java.security.provider.SHA.java has been
 * renamed to reflect the many chances made to it. While the processing
 * kernel has not been changed, the overall interface has. Especially
 * some methods have been added which can hash several kinds of data
 * types, as needed by the jrpcgen protocol compiler.

this class has also been removed also from java-gcj-compat, and classpath packages also (dead package)

> [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> 
>      see above re: patching COPYING

> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> 
>      There are several testing mains in remotetea/src/tests/; this package
> should run them
> 
already run with jrpcgen-test

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea-1.0.7-2.fc19.src.rpm

- fix license field

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3)

> is not the same class:
> 
>  * The original file gnu.java.security.provider.SHA.java has been
>  * renamed to reflect the many chances made to it. While the processing
>  * kernel has not been changed, the overall interface has. Especially
>  * some methods have been added which can hash several kinds of data
>  * types, as needed by the jrpcgen protocol compiler.
> 
> this class has also been removed also from java-gcj-compat, and classpath
> packages also (dead package)

So in this case, it appears that we need a bundling exception because the processing kernel is copied from another project (even if the API changes):

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Modified_beyond_a_certain_extent

However, based on these guidelines, an exception seems likely.

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea-1.0.7-3.fc19.src.rpm

- fix bundled libraries

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6277923

Thanks for making these changes, Gil.  I've reviewed the code and it appears that removing the custom serialVersionUID values won't have much impact in this case (since the generated ones are strictly less descriptive than default ones).

Please make two more quick changes and then I'll do a final review:

1.  I believe that the license was GPLv2 with linking exception *and* LGPLv2, but since you've patched out the GPLv2 code, the license is just LGPLv2 now.
2.  Please delete the line that patches COPYING.LIB altogether.

Created attachment 835375 [details]
clean implementation of JrpcgenSHA.java

Gil, this is a clean implementation of JrpcgenSHA.java that calls out to the Java standard library's implementation of SHA-1.  It should otherwise be interface- and implemenation-compatible with the one that depended on bundled code.

Thanks!

Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc19.src.rpm

- use custom JrpcgenSHA, thanks to Will Benton willb
- fix license field
- cleanup spec file

Thanks, Gil!

BTW, I've filed the new JrpcgenSHA implementation upstream:

https://sourceforge.net/apps/trac/remotetea/ticket/3

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

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



===== 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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 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]: 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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[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]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[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)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES 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:
[x]: 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[-]: 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.

     (tests run as part of %build; this is ok since they are very brief)

[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 tarball generation or download is documented.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc19.noarch.rpm
          remotetea-javadoc-1.0.7-4.fc19.noarch.rpm
          remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc19.src.rpm
remotetea.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/remotetea-1.0.7/COPYING.LIB
remotetea-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/remotetea-javadoc-1.0.7/COPYING.LIB
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 0 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint remotetea-javadoc remotetea
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



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

remotetea (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java
    java_cup
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
remotetea-javadoc:
    remotetea-javadoc

remotetea:
    mvn(org.acplt:jrpcgen)
    mvn(org.acplt:oncrpc)
    mvn(org.acplt:portmap)
    remotetea



Source checksums
----------------
http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/acplt/oncrpc/1.0.7/oncrpc-1.0.7.pom :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : a33bb2dc62417df1314b8df3549dd2e308e5960f30da83d6d3804fc42db4b5ee
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a33bb2dc62417df1314b8df3549dd2e308e5960f30da83d6d3804fc42db4b5ee
http://downloads.sourceforge.net/remotetea/remotetea-src-1.0.7.zip :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : d28c78af62fdad68eadfde03384a48be1498477026b86e204a3558363854da4e
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d28c78af62fdad68eadfde03384a48be1498477026b86e204a3558363854da4e


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 991621
Buildroot used: fedora-19-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG

Thanks!

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: remotetea
Short Description: Java implementation of Sun's ONC/RPC Remote Procedure Protocol
Owners: gil
Branches: f20
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc20

remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.

remotetea-1.0.7-4.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.