Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm Description: MultiBit Commons contains classes and libraries to support MultiBit projects. Fedora Account System Username: jonny A support library for the MultiBit HD bitcoin client
Build fails: [ERROR] Plugin org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin:2.4 or one of its dependencies could not be resolved: Cannot access central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin:jar:2.4 has not been downloaded from it before. -> [Help 1] Please, add the missing plugin in the BR list or remove it
Please, remove also org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin is not available and add org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-release-plugin
Removed plugins org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin and org.codehaus.mojo:findbugs-maven-plugin. Added BR org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-release-plugin. Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
Please, is a suggestion, use bcpg-jdk15on instead of bcpg-jdk16. because this last is only an alias
have you time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1346382 ? (priority is low)
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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1331589-multibit-commons/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: 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 [-]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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 %license. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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 metadata) 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 .mfiles file list 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 multibit-commons-javadoc [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [x]: 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]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: multibit-commons-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm multibit-commons-javadoc-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm multibit-commons-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- multibit-commons-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools multibit-commons (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(ch.qos.logback:logback-classic) mvn(com.google.code.findbugs:annotations) mvn(com.google.guava:guava) mvn(joda-time:joda-time) mvn(org.bitcoinj:bitcoinj-core) mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcpg-jdk16) mvn(org.slf4j:jul-to-slf4j) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) Provides -------- multibit-commons-javadoc: multibit-commons-javadoc multibit-commons: multibit-commons mvn(org.multibit:commons) mvn(org.multibit:commons:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/bitcoin-solutions/multibit-commons/archive/1.1.0.tar.gz#/multibit-commons-1.1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5a653f2b570b2c23d7caddd39406669c92b69df4155af389a7d2d4b19004cd17 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5a653f2b570b2c23d7caddd39406669c92b69df4155af389a7d2d4b19004cd17 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1331589 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -L /home/gil/deps Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 Built with local dependencies: ~/deps/bitcoinj-0.14.3-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
> Please, is a suggestion, use bcpg-jdk15on instead of bcpg-jdk16. because > this last is only an alias Updated
Issues: [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1331589-multibit-commons/licensecheck.txt license field should be: MIT and GPLv2+ GPL ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/sntp/NtpMessage.java These files are without license headers: ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/concurrent/SafeExecutors.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/concurrent/SafeScheduledThreadPoolExecutor.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/concurrent/SafeThreadPoolExecutor.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/crypto/AESUtils.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/crypto/ECUtils.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/crypto/PGPUtils.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/files/SecureFiles.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/utils/Dates.java ./src/main/java/org/multibit/commons/utils/HttpsUtils.java ./src/test/java/org/multibit/commons/utils/DatesTest.java Please, report the problem to upstream. https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification
Ups, closed the wrong ticket, setting the status back to assigned
> have you time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1346382 ? (priority is low) I will start on it after I have finished this ticket.
> Please, report the problem to upstream. Added a new issue here: https://github.com/keepkey/multibit-commons/issues/2
> license field should be: MIT and GPLv2+ Fixed + updated the URL and Source0 to keepkey. Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons.spec SRPM URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/multibit-commons/multibit-commons-1.1.0-1.fc24.src.rpm
>> have you time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1346382 ? (priority is low) > > I will start on it after I have finished this ticket. It have been reviewed, just let me know if you want me to review another ticket
(In reply to Jonny Heggheim from comment #13) > >> have you time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1346382 ? (priority is low) > > > > I will start on it after I have finished this ticket. > > It have been reviewed, just let me know if you want me to review another > ticket thanks, i have these for upgrade apache cxf [1] but at the moment i would grant me with the maintainer of the various aries packages already present in Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347973 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347975 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347976 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347977 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1347980 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1348146 ... and are not all still here ... [1] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1276555 Approved
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/multibit-commons