Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbluhm/nodejs/epel-8-x86_64/02365568-xpp3/xpp3.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbluhm/nodejs/epel-8-x86_64/02365568-xpp3/xpp3-1.1.4-27.c.el8.src.rpm Description: XML Pull Parser 3rd Edition (XPP3) MXP1 is an XmlPull parsing engine that is based on ideas from XPP and in particular XPP2 but completely revised and rewritten. Fedora Account System Username: sbluhm Additional information: Package already existed but has been orphaned. Primary aim: Required in EPEL8 repository for xstream package and Uyuni solutions.
Hi, I notice the URL to repo1.maven.org must use HTTPS to be able to connect to the pom files. And also extreme.indiana.edu domain has been expired.
Thank you for your feedback. I will incorporate the https in the next revision. Homepage is indeed dead. there is an alternative github page but it is not official. So I rather not put that.
Updated links: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbluhm/nodejs/epel-8-x86_64/02467915-xpp3/xpp3.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbluhm/nodejs/epel-8-x86_64/02467915-xpp3/xpp3-1.1.4-28.c.el8.src.rpm Change: Updated Maven links to https.
Source checksums ---------------- > xpp3.src: W: file-size-mismatch xpp3-1.1.4c_src.tgz = 571158, http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/dist/java-repository/xpp3/distributions/xpp3-1.1.4c_src.tgz = 241 This is expected, I guess, because the link has been expired. > xpp3.src: W: file-size-mismatch xpp3-1.1.4c.pom = 2101, https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/xpp3/xpp3/1.1.4c/xpp3-1.1.4c.pom = 2105 This is shouldn't be.
Interesting. The file gets changed when building the src.rpm. File used to build as input is 2105 bytes. It seems that the build modifies the source file: # diff xpp3-1.1.4c.pom /tmp/xpp3-temp/xpp3-1.1.4c.pom 1,3c1 < <project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0" < xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" < xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 http://maven.apache.org/maven-v4_0_0.xsd"> --- > <project xmlns="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0" xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance" xsi:schemaLocation="http://maven.apache.org/POM/4.0.0 http://maven.apache.org/maven-v4_0_0.xsd">
ok, now: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbluhm/nodejs/fedora-34-x86_64/02478210-xpp3/xpp3.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbluhm/nodejs/fedora-34-x86_64/02478210-xpp3/xpp3-1.1.4-28.c.fc34.src.rpm Seems that I logged in under a different user in between builds/terminal windows. Not sure though who/what changed the source initially.
Issues: ======= > - Package does not use a name that already exists. > Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xpp3 > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names This is expected > - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in > /home/chronoelves/xpp3/diff.txt > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/SourceURL/ This is expected > - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools > (jpackage-utils) > Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is > pulled in by maven-local > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java I just installed the fedora-review-plugin-java, and this issue came out. I think it doesn't allow you to BR javapackages-local and BR maven-local instead (?) > [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses > found: "Apache License 1.1", "Unknown or generated", "IBM Public > License 1.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later > [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place), obsolete FSF postal > address (Temple Place)]". 298 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in /home/chronoelves/xpp3/licensecheck.txt licensecheck.txt output: Apache License 1.1 ------------------ xpp3-1.1.4c/LICENSE.txt xpp3-1.1.4c/doc/acknowledgement/LICENSE.txt xpp3-1.1.4c/lib/ant/LICENSE.txt GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place), obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- xpp3-1.1.4c/lib/xmlpull/LICENSE_TESTS.txt xpp3-1.1.4c/src/java/tests/LICENSE_TESTS.txt IBM Public License 1.0 ---------------------- xpp3-1.1.4c/lib/junit/LICENSE.txt for IBM and LGPLv2+, they consist of "tests" and file from lib/ folder. Looking at them, it probably good to remove the lib/ folder, but Idk you should get rid of the "tests" folder or not. So leaving us with "License: ASL 1.1" But after some research, from https://search.maven.org/artifact/xpp3/xpp3/1.1.4c/jar, it should be "License: ASL 1.1 and BSD and Public Domain" (Indiana License looks like BSD, see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:BSD) Meanwhile, from https://mvnrepository.com/artifact/xpp3/xpp3/1.1.4c, it should be "License: ASL 1.1 and CC0 and Public Domain" So I don't know for sure which licenses are the correct one. > [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > xpp3-minimal is this not applicable?
> I just installed the fedora-review-plugin-java, and this issue came out. > I think it doesn't allow you to BR javapackages-local and BR maven-local instead (?) Yepp, missed it. will be updated. Thank you. > License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. I think there might be misunderstanding from my side. I understood that this is the licensing of the package and not the content. That is why I picked that one. Should it be the license of the source files? Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in > xpp3-minimal As far as I understand, minimal is a smaller version of xpp3 and can be installed stand alone. So xpp3-minimal should not have a requirement to xpp3.
(In reply to Stefan Bluhm from comment #8) > > License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > > I think there might be misunderstanding from my side. I understood that this > is the licensing of the package and not the content. That is why I picked > that one. Should it be the license of the source files? Oops, I was claiming Indiana License looks like BSD, I was wrong. it definitely looks like ASL 1.1 (See http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-1.1) But you could see the xpp3-*.pom files for the licenses. It is indeed a Public Domain. So I think it will be "License: ASL 1.1 and Public Domain".
Updated links: Spec URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbluhm/nodejs/epel-8-x86_64/02504934-xpp3/xpp3.spec SRPM URL: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/sbluhm/nodejs/epel-8-x86_64/02504934-xpp3/xpp3-1.1.4-28.c.el8.src.rpm Change: - maven-local dependency. - license Previous changes: - included original pom files. - https maven links.
Now it looks good to me, Package APPROVED. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 8 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 %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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [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]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: javapackages-tools (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]: 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 xpp3-minimal [?]: 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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: xpp3-1.1.4-28.c.fc35.noarch.rpm xpp3-minimal-1.1.4-28.c.fc35.noarch.rpm xpp3-javadoc-1.1.4-28.c.fc35.noarch.rpm xpp3-1.1.4-28.c.fc35.src.rpm xpp3-minimal.noarch: W: no-documentation xpp3.src: W: file-size-mismatch xpp3-1.1.4c_src.tgz = 571158, http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/dist/java-repository/xpp3/distributions/xpp3-1.1.4c_src.tgz = 241 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/xpp3/xpp3_min/1.1.4c/xpp3_min-1.1.4c.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b5b46ac0c09da41b04dbc753456b48912856a7ffbb1490676910b510c471d13f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b5b46ac0c09da41b04dbc753456b48912856a7ffbb1490676910b510c471d13f https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/xpp3/xpp3_xpath/1.1.4c/xpp3_xpath-1.1.4c.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8ea857c09d8c631e5d683342a5608c2d375ce6dbb917761b52398155d43a2480 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8ea857c09d8c631e5d683342a5608c2d375ce6dbb917761b52398155d43a2480 https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/xpp3/xpp3/1.1.4c/xpp3-1.1.4c.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4e54622f5dc0f8b6c51e28650268f001e3b55d076c8e3a9d9731c050820c0a3d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4e54622f5dc0f8b6c51e28650268f001e3b55d076c8e3a9d9731c050820c0a3d http://www.extreme.indiana.edu/dist/java-repository/xpp3/distributions/xpp3-1.1.4c_src.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6ee05bec097e70ecf0e9833a1e955ffca0793ac61fde1ef78402087f52835251 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 95f44600c2ad0c8557c1c187f94d7e2bcaaf92eea01cf1375c932d5c888b7d13 diff -r also reports differences Requires -------- xpp3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-11-headless) javapackages-filesystem xpp3-minimal (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-11-headless) javapackages-filesystem xpp3-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-javadoc javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- xpp3: mvn(xpp3:xpp3) mvn(xpp3:xpp3:pom:) mvn(xpp3:xpp3_xpath) mvn(xpp3:xpp3_xpath:pom:) osgi(org.xmlpull) xpp3 xpp3-minimal: mvn(xpp3:xpp3_min) mvn(xpp3:xpp3_min:pom:) xpp3-minimal xpp3-javadoc: xpp3-javadoc
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5721ee3601 has been submitted as an update to Fedora EPEL 8. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5721ee3601
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5721ee3601 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 testing repository. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5721ee3601 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-EPEL-2021-5721ee3601 has been pushed to the Fedora EPEL 8 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.