Spec URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt-3.5.0.0-1.fc40.src.rpm Description: BiglyBT is forked from Vuze/Azureus and is being maintained by two of the original developers as well as members of the community. Fedora Account System Username: sergiomb
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=111748589
*** Bug 1981982 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/6895883 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258366-biglybt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/06895883-biglybt/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file ADDITIONAL_LICENSE_INFO is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
I've never packaged or reviewed a Java package, so I'm completely going off the packaging guidelines. Please correct and explain if you disagree. :) Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Suggestions: ============ - Use %autorelease and %autochangelog macros Issues: ======= - Incorrect License 'BSD' (also not SPDX) I can't find any files licensed as BSD. A quick look using the licensecheck tool shows the following licenses: GPL-2, GPL-2.0-or-later, LGPL-2.1, Apache-2.0, Apache-2.0 and/or LGPL-2.1, GPL, MIT Some of these files are maybe not included in the binary rpm, so those licenses may be omitted. - ExclusiveArch: %{java_arches} This is required for architecture-dependend java packages. You can also remove the `ExcludeArch:` as `%{java_arches}` only contains 64-bit arches. - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Spec file could use some cleanup Many useless comments - pom.xml file not installed See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_maven_pom_xml_files - bundled(bouncycastle) and bundled(json_simple) Bundled libraries are not allowed: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies - Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Are all patches Fedora specific or can you upstream some of them? - rpmlint warning class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/biglybt/BiglyBT.jar - Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/application-registry Is this still used in newer gnome versions? I suggest removing the biglybt.applications file ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: 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", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "MIT License", "GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later and/or Public domain", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 or later", "GNU General Public License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 only [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]", "GNU General Public License, Version 2 [obsolete FSF postal address (Temple Place)]". 1091 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/arthur/fedora- review/2258366-biglybt/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/application-registry, /usr/share/javadoc, /usr/share/java [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/application- registry [-]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 13231 bytes in 3 files. [!]: 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 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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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: [!]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: 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. [?]: 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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: biglybt-3.5.0.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm biglybt-javadoc-3.5.0.0-1.fc41.noarch.rpm biglybt-3.5.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm =================================================================================================================== rpmlint session starts =================================================================================================================== rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp9cz27ogl')] checks: 32, packages: 3 biglybt-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99% biglybt.spec:120: W: macro-in-comment %{buildroot} biglybt.spec:120: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} biglybt.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/biglybt/BiglyBT.jar ============================================================================= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 5.8 s ============================================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 2 biglybt-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99% biglybt.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/biglybt/BiglyBT.jar 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 5.2 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/BiglySoftware/BiglyBT/archive/v3.5.0.0/BiglyBT-3.5.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 71637043a8bb33243857f2e743aa2bf5091418656067d552992f75893a99a870 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 71637043a8bb33243857f2e743aa2bf5091418656067d552992f75893a99a870 Requires -------- biglybt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-cli) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3) mvn(org.eclipse.swt:org.eclipse.swt) biglybt-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- biglybt: application() application(biglybt.desktop) biglybt bundled(bouncycastle) bundled(json_simple) mimehandler(application/x-biglybt) mimehandler(application/x-bittorrent) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/biglybt) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/magnet) biglybt-javadoc: biglybt-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2258366 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Java, Generic Disabled plugins: PHP, fonts, Perl, Ocaml, Python, SugarActivity, C/C++, Haskell, R Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
This is an automatic check from review-stats script. This review request ticket hasn't been updated for some time, but it seems that the review is still being working out by you. If this is right, please respond to this comment clearing the NEEDINFO flag and try to reach out the submitter to proceed with the review. If you're not interested in reviewing this ticket anymore, please clear the fedora-review flag and reset the assignee, so that a new reviewer can take this ticket. Without any reply, this request will shortly be resetted.
Spec URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt-3.7.0.0-2.fc41.src.rpm
Created attachment 2077886 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 6895883 to 8700886
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8700886 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258366-biglybt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08700886-biglybt/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file ADDITIONAL_LICENSE_INFO is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Not a valid SPDX expression 'BSD'. It seems that you are using the old Fedora license abbreviations. Try `license-fedora2spdx' for converting it to SPDX. Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Spec URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt-3.7.0.0-2.fc41.src.rpm Fix License and some other minor things
Created attachment 2077920 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8700886 to 8702216
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8702216 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258366-biglybt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08702216-biglybt/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file ADDITIONAL_LICENSE_INFO is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Spec URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt-3.7.0.0-2.fc41.src.rpm More fix in Licenses
Created attachment 2077922 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8702216 to 8702371
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8702371 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258366-biglybt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08702371-biglybt/fedora-review/review.txt Please take a look if any issues were found. --- 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.
Spec URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt-3.8.0.0-1.fc41.src.rpm Update to 3.8.0.0
Created attachment 2078108 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8702371 to 8707222
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8707222 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258366-biglybt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08707222-biglybt/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file LICENSE.html is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Spec URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt-3.8.0.0-2.fc41.src.rpm Use apache.commons.text , final spec version
Created attachment 2078640 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8707222 to 8718292
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8718292 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258366-biglybt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08718292-biglybt/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file LICENSE.html is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.
Spec URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt.spec SRPM URL: https://sergiomb.fedorapeople.org/biglybt/biglybt-3.8.0.2-1.fc43.src.rpm Update to 3.8.0.2 , build with Java 21 , use Java 21 even is not default , fix error "Unable to make field private static final java.net.spi.InetAddressResolver" enabling --add-opens java.base/java.net=ALL-UNNAMED Now I think is really the final version
Created attachment 2084575 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 8718292 to 8896338
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8896338 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2258366-biglybt/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08896338-biglybt/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - License file LICENSE.html is not marked as %license Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text Please know that there can be false-positives. --- 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.