Spec URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/asmtools7/openjdk-asmtools7.spec SRPM URL: https://jvanek.fedorapeople.org/asmtools7/openjdk-asmtools7-7.0.b10-0.5.20210610.gitf40a2c0.fc35.src.rpm Description: AsmTools helps develop tools to create proper and improper Java '.class' files. for jdk11 and down Aids various Java .class based testing and OpenJDK development applications. Asmtools supports latest class file formats, in lock-step with JDK development. AsmTools consist of a set of (Java class file) assembler/dis-assemblers: Jasm/Jdis: An assembler language to provide Java-like declaration of member signatures, providing Java VM specification compliant mnemonics for byte-code instructions. JCod/JDec: An assembler language to provide byte-code containers of class-file constructs. Fedora Account System Username: jvanek compact packge for openjdk-asmtools which were bumped to v8 which is jdk16 and up.
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", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 only". 6 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jvanek/Desktop/2141767-openjdk-asmtools7/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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf %{buildroot} present but not required [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 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]: 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]: 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 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: [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: https://github.com/openjdk/asmtools/archive/f40a2c014cfd32eb6cc1e1c6c4264a0411fe0415/openjdk- asmtools-f40a2c0.tar.xz See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %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]: 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 ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 openjdk-asmtools7-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs: 100% openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openjdk-asmtools7-jasm openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openjdk-asmtools7-jcdec openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openjdk-asmtools7-jcoder openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openjdk-asmtools7-jdec openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary openjdk-asmtools7-jdis openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/openjdk-asmtools7/LICENSE openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 7.0.b10-0.4.20210610.gitf40a2c0 ['7.0.b10-0.5.20210610.gitf40a2c0.fc36', '7.0.b10-0.5.20210610.gitf40a2c0'] openjdk-asmtools7.noarch: E: description-line-too-long AsmTools helps develop tools to create proper and improper Java '.class' files. for jdk11 and down 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 7 warnings, 2 badness; has taken 0.7 s Requires -------- openjdk-asmtools7 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-17-headless) java-headless javapackages-filesystem openjdk-asmtools7-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- openjdk-asmtools7: mvn(org.openjdk.asmtools:asmtools-core) mvn(org.openjdk.asmtools:asmtools-core:pom:) openjdk-asmtools7 openjdk-asmtools7-javadoc: openjdk-asmtools7-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2141767 -m fedora-36-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-36-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Java Disabled plugins: fonts, Haskell, C/C++, PHP, R, Ocaml, Python, Perl, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH requesting pkg exception: https://pagure.io/releng/fedora-scm-requests/issue/49604
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94826238
https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=94827073 fix was needed.
FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e has been submitted as an update to Fedora 36. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e
FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 37. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656
FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656 \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656 See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e has been pushed to the Fedora 36 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf install --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e \*` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2022-a4f8aa2656 has been pushed to the Fedora 37 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.
FEDORA-2022-eec698eb2e has been pushed to the Fedora 36 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.