Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/mxparser.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/mxparser-1.2.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: MXParser is a fork of xpp3_min 1.1.7 containing only the parser with merged changes of the Plexus fork. It is an implementation of the XMLPULL V1 API (parser only). Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41
I get these rpmlint errors/warnings: mxparser.src: E: summary-too-long C MXParser is a fork of xpp3_min 1.1.7 containing only the parser with merged changes of the Plexus fork mxparser.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C MXParser Maybe try this for the summary: "Parser of xpp3_min 1.1.7 with merged changes of the Plexus fork"
I will fix the summary ASAP, thank you!
One more thing on the license: I am unsure what to put as the license. The included license is "Indiana University Extreme! Lab Software License" and you put "ASL". Do they match?
It doesn't match, probably from my last copy-paste. I just found in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Good_Licenses there is license for Indiana, but written as XPP License. So the license should be xpp now.
LGTM so approving. 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: "Apache License 1.1", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 7 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /root/1992962-mxparser/licensecheck.txt [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 [-]: 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. [x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. xpp3 is not part of current releases so pass. [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]: 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]: 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 [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]: 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: [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]: 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. [?]: 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. 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. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: mxparser-1.2.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm mxparser-javadoc-1.2.1-1.fc36.noarch.rpm mxparser-1.2.1-1.fc36.src.rpm mxparser.src:52: W: macro-in-%changelog %autochangelog 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/x-stream/mxparser/archive/v-1.2.1/mxparser-v-1.2.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7e5db858845b7ffb1f91f78050adcdad9658988f884569f3eed929ca8cf49187 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7e5db858845b7ffb1f91f78050adcdad9658988f884569f3eed929ca8cf49187 Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1992962 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Java, Shell-api, Generic Disabled plugins: Haskell, fonts, R, Python, SugarActivity, C/C++, Ocaml, Ruby, Perl, PHP Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH Requires -------- mxparser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-11-headless) javapackages-filesystem mvn(xmlpull:xmlpull) mxparser-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- mxparser: mvn(io.github.x-stream:mxparser) mvn(io.github.x-stream:mxparser:pom:) mxparser osgi(mxparser) mxparser-javadoc: mxparser-javadoc
Thank you for review!
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/mxparser
FEDORA-2021-944a460bfa has been submitted as an update to Fedora 35. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-944a460bfa
FEDORA-2021-7c11a79612 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 33. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7c11a79612
FEDORA-2021-59aa39afd5 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 34. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-59aa39afd5
FEDORA-2021-7c11a79612 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-2021-7c11a79612 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-7c11a79612 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-944a460bfa 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-2021-944a460bfa \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-944a460bfa See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-59aa39afd5 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-2021-59aa39afd5 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-59aa39afd5 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-015aa56624 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-015aa56624` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-015aa56624 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-bf38b8b553 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-bf38b8b553` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-bf38b8b553 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-61860e4d06 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --advisory=FEDORA-2021-61860e4d06` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2021-61860e4d06 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2021-015aa56624 has been pushed to the Fedora 34 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-61860e4d06 has been pushed to the Fedora 33 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2021-bf38b8b553 has been pushed to the Fedora 35 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.