Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/xmlpull.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/xmlpull-1.2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: XmlPull v1 API is a simple to use XML pull parsing API that was designed for simplicity and very good performance both in constrained environment such as defined by J2ME and on server side when used in J2EE application servers. Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41
*** Bug 462560 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Koji scracth build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73681546
Any chance of adding export JAVA_HOME=/usr/lib/jvm/java-11 to the top of the %build section? Otherwise it would take Java 1.8 on EPEL8 and the build will fail. (or is there a better way to set the to be used Java version)
Hi, Since `maven-local` is using java 8 by default in EPEL (idk why), I've decided to remove `module-info.java` in EPEL only. is that okay? I've updated the spec above, and here's the successful koji build, EPEL8: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=73884563
Can't judge on that so OK from my perspective.
xmlpull-1.2.0-1.el8.noarch.rpm xmlpull-1.2.0-1.fc34.src.rpm xmlpull-javadoc-1.2.0-1.el8.noarch.rpm xmlpull.spec # rpmlint xmlpull 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK from my side.
Hmm, you need to set the flag, fedora-review, to `+` to approve this package. But before that, you need to make sure that this package is run by a fedora-review tool to see it fits with fedora guidelines. Anyway, I'm sorry that these weeks is a bit chaotic for me. I'll see this package review in another saturday. Regards.
Let me look at this again. Couldn't see the tool mentioned in the review guidelines. Must have skipped it somewhere. Only saw rpmlint as mandatory (and mentioned).
@didiksupriadi41 , I revisited the guidelines and found the fedora-review section. 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place), obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "Apache License 1.1". 423 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root/1992757-xmlpull/licensecheck.txt [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: xmlpull (description) [-]: 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. [?]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. xpp3 is not available on supported systems so an obsolete is not required. [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: 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]: 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 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 javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local 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- [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]: 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. [-]: %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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: xmlpull-1.2.0-1.fc36.noarch.rpm xmlpull-1.2.0-1.fc36.src.rpm xmlpull.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %javadoc_package xmlpull.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javadoc -> java doc, java-doc, avocado 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/xmlpull-xpp3/xmlpull-xpp3/archive/xmlpull-xpp3-parent-1.2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8066668687f3a9160caa5b6a2bbb37a046fe7eef3054f5e79378fe25e00dcfd4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8066668687f3a9160caa5b6a2bbb37a046fe7eef3054f5e79378fe25e00dcfd4 Requires -------- xmlpull (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-11-headless) javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- xmlpull: mvn(xmlpull:xmlpull) mvn(xmlpull:xmlpull-samples) mvn(xmlpull:xmlpull-samples:pom:) mvn(xmlpull:xmlpull:pom:) osgi(org.xmlpull.v1) xmlpull Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1992757 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: Perl, SugarActivity, C/C++, Python, fonts, Ocaml, PHP, R, Ruby, Haskell
Thank you for the review!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/xmlpull
FEDORA-2021-b00b52108c has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b00b52108c
FEDORA-2021-3f9e5a9e20 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3f9e5a9e20
FEDORA-2021-3f9e5a9e20 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-3f9e5a9e20 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-3f9e5a9e20 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-b329f8f11c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-b329f8f11c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b329f8f11c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-b00b52108c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-b00b52108c \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-b00b52108c See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-3f9e5a9e20 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-b00b52108c has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-b329f8f11c has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.