Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/jakarta-xml-rpc.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/jakarta-xml-rpc-1.1.4-1.fc32.src.rpm Description: Jakarta XML RPC API provides standardized Java APIs for using XML-RPC. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe Note 1: This is a rename-review request for updating / renaming the outdated / broken geronimo-jaxrpc package. Please verify that Obsoletes and Provides are correct. Note 2: This package requires jakarta-saaj (review request still pending). Note 3: I have added compat aliases for the old maven artifact coordinates, and a compat symlink for the old classpath (for tomcat). Please verify that they are correct. Additionally, the following old aliases from geronimo-jaxrpc are no longer needed: - jaxrpc_api - mvn(org.apache.geronimo.specs:geronimo-jaxrpc_1.1_spec)
- This won't work # package renamed in fedora 33, remove in fedora 35 Provides: geronimo-jaxrpc-javadoc = %{version}-%{release} Obsoletes: geronimo-jaxrpc-javadoc < 2.1-28 because: self-obsoletion geronimo-jaxrpc < 2.1-28 obsoletes geronimo-jaxrpc = 1.1.4-1.fc34 I'm not certain of the proper solution other than add Epoch. 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Eclipse Public License 2.0", "Eclipse Public License 2.0". 11 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/jakarta- xml-rpc/review-jakarta-xml-rpc/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. ===== 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: jakarta-xml-rpc-1.1.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm jakarta-xml-rpc-javadoc-1.1.4-1.fc34.noarch.rpm jakarta-xml-rpc-1.1.4-1.fc34.src.rpm jakarta-xml-rpc.noarch: W: self-obsoletion geronimo-jaxrpc < 2.1-28 obsoletes geronimo-jaxrpc = 1.1.4-1.fc34 jakarta-xml-rpc.noarch: W: no-documentation jakarta-xml-rpc-javadoc.noarch: W: self-obsoletion geronimo-jaxrpc-javadoc < 2.1-28 obsoletes geronimo-jaxrpc-javadoc = 1.1.4-1.fc34 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Ohh ... good catch. I have added "Epoch: 1" to the package and "%{epoch}" to the Provides, but not to the Obsoletes, which I think should ensure correct upgrade path. Files are at the same URLs.
LGTM. Package approved.
Thanks! :)
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/jakarta-xml-rpc
Built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601941 And for fedora 33: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1601942 I submitted a buildroot override for f33 and retired geronimo-jaxrpc.