Spec URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/flexmark-java/flexmark-java.spec SRPM URL: https://jjames.fedorapeople.org/flexmark-java/flexmark-java-0.64.6-1.fc40.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: jjames Description: Flexmark-java is a Java CommonMark (spec 0.28) parser using the blocks first, inlines after Markdown parsing architecture. Its strengths are speed, flexibility, Markdown source element based AST with details of the source position down to individual characters of lexemes that make up the element and extensibility. The API allows granular control of the parsing process and is optimized for parsing with a large number of installed extensions. The parser and extensions come with plenty of options for parser behavior and HTML rendering variations. The end goal is to have the parser and renderer be able to mimic other parsers with great degree of accuracy. This is now partially complete with the implementation of Markdown Processor Emulation.
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6329926 (failed) Build log: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2233317-flexmark-java/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06329926-flexmark-java/builder-live.log.gz Please make sure the package builds successfully at least for Fedora Rawhide. - If the build failed for unrelated reasons (e.g. temporary network unavailability), please ignore it. - If the build failed because of missing BuildRequires, please make sure they are listed in the "Depends On" field --- This comment was created by the fedora-review-service https://github.com/FrostyX/fedora-review-service If you want to trigger a new Copr build, add a comment containing new Spec and SRPM URLs or [fedora-review-service-build] string.
Package approved. Please take into account the comment below before importing. Please: - add commit rights to java-maint-sig after requesting the repo - add the package to Koschei in the java-maint-sig group on all branches you are building - add the package to release-monitoring.org even if it does not release version BSD-2-Clause AND Apache-2.0: - flexmark-java-0.64.6-1.fc38.src.rpm-extract/flexmark-java-0.64.6.tar.gz-extract/flexmark-java-0.64.6/flexmark-util-misc/src/main/java/com/vladsch/flexmark/util/misc/ImageUtils.java There is some shenanigans here: /* * Copyright (c) 2017, Holger Brandl, All rights reserved. * * Copyright (c) 2017, Vladimir Schneider, All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without * modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met: * * Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this * list of conditions and the following disclaimer. * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, * this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation * and/or other materials provided with the distribution. * * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND CONTRIBUTORS "AS IS" * AND ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE * IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE * DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE * FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR CONSEQUENTIAL * DAMAGES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, PROCUREMENT OF SUBSTITUTE GOODS OR * SERVICES; LOSS OF USE, DATA, OR PROFITS; OR BUSINESS INTERRUPTION) HOWEVER * CAUSED AND ON ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY, WHETHER IN CONTRACT, STRICT LIABILITY, * OR TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE OR OTHERWISE) ARISING IN ANY WAY OUT OF THE USE * OF THIS SOFTWARE, EVEN IF ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE. * Copyright (c) 2015-2018 Vladimir Schneider <vladimir.schneider>, all rights reserved. * * This code is private property of the copyright holder and cannot be used without * having obtained a license or prior written permission of the of the copyright holder. * * Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, * software distributed under the License is distributed on an * "AS IS" BASIS, WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY * KIND, either express or implied. See the License for the * specific language governing permissions and limitations * under the License. * */ And some other files: https://github.com/search?q=repo%3Avsch%2Fflexmark-java+%22This+code+is+private+property+of+the+copyright+holder%22&type=code OK this is clarified here: https://github.com/vsch/flexmark-java/issues/443 Could you add a ink to this issue in a comment. Also a link to this archive I made in case it closes shop: https://web.archive.org/web/20230827145555/https://github.com/vsch/flexmark-java/issues/443 PR sent to fix the bug: https://github.com/vsch/flexmark-java/pull/590 Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/ ===== 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", "BSD 2-Clause License", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0", "*No copyright* Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 Apache License 2.0", "Apache License 2.0". 2812 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/flexmark-java/review- flexmark-java/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. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: flexmark-java (description), flexmark-java-ext- jekyll-tag (description) [-]: 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. [0]: 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 35997 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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]: 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- 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in flexmark-java-test-util , flexmark-java-tree-iteration , flexmark- java-util , flexmark-java-util-ast , flexmark-java-util-builder , flexmark-java-util-collection , flexmark-java-util-data , flexmark- java-util-dependency , flexmark-java-util-experimental , flexmark- java-util-format , flexmark-java-util-html , flexmark-java-util-misc , flexmark-java-util-options , flexmark-java-util-sequence , flexmark- java-util-visitor [?]: 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. [-]: %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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_use_rpmlint [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Good catch on the license. I will add a comment as requested. Thank you for the review!
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/flexmark-java
FEDORA-2023-883d8e5b4a has been submitted as an update to Fedora 39. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-883d8e5b4a
FEDORA-2023-883d8e5b4a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 testing repository. Soon you'll be able to install the update with the following command: `sudo dnf upgrade --enablerepo=updates-testing --refresh --advisory=FEDORA-2023-883d8e5b4a` You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2023-883d8e5b4a See also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for more information on how to test updates.
FEDORA-2023-883d8e5b4a has been pushed to the Fedora 39 stable repository. If problem still persists, please make note of it in this bug report.