Spec URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/aqute-bnd-epel.spec SRPM URL: https://salimma.fedorapeople.org/aqute-bnd-epel-6.3.1-11.1.fc41.src.rpm Description: The bnd tool helps you create and diagnose OSGi bundles. The key functions are: - Show the manifest and JAR contents of a bundle - Wrap a JAR so that it becomes a bundle - Create a Bundle from a specification and a class path - Verify the validity of the manifest entries The tool is capable of acting as: - Command line tool - File format - Directives - Use of macros Fedora Account System Username: salimma
*** Bug 2325259 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/8244153 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2325318-aqute-bnd-epel/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/08244153-aqute-bnd-epel/fedora-review/review.txt Found issues: - Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java - No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - No javadoc subpackage present Read more: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation 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.
COPR build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/salimma/antlr4-el10/build/8244161/
Diff from c10s spec https://paste.centos.org/view/9dc4275e
Review notes: * Packaging looks reasonable for an EPEL fork with a subset of packages * Licensing is correctly handled * Package builds and installs * No serious issues from rpmlint FYI: In the future, attach diffs to the bug rather than linking to paste.centos.org, since pastes expire after a single day. PACKAGE APPROVED.
The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/aqute-bnd-epel
# mock -r alma+epel-10-x86_64 aqute-bnd-epel-6.3.1-11.1.fc41.src.rpm works fine, but # mock -r alma+epel-10-x86_64 --define "with bnd_maven_plugin" aqute-bnd-epel-6.3.1-11.1.fc41.src.rpm ends with warning: /builddir/build/SPECS/aqute-bnd-epel.spec: line 44: unexpected argument to non-parametric macro %with error: bare words are no longer supported, please use "...": bnd_maven_plugin error: ^ error: /builddir/build/SPECS/aqute-bnd-epel.spec:44: bad %if condition: bnd_maven_plugin Line 44 is: %if %{with bnd_maven_plugin}. Changing it to %if 0%{?_with_bnd_maven_plugin} solves the problem at line 44 and runs into the next on line 80, so this seems to confirm the solution. A separate problem when all the bare words have been fixed, occurs during the build: [ERROR] UndeclaredThrowableException: InvocationTargetException: Plugin org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin:3.2.1 or one of its dependencies could not be resolved: [ERROR] Cannot access central (https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin:jar:3.2.1 has not been downloaded from it before. Indeed, maven-source-plugin was not pulled in, despite mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin) being part of the conditional BuildRequires. So there's still something wrong with those %if macros.
On line 44 of the spec, none of the following triggers the conditional BuildRequires to pull in maven-source-plugin: %if %{with "bnd_maven_plugin"} %if ( %{with bnd_maven_plugin} ) %if %{?_with_bnd_maven_plugin} %if %{?_with_bnd_maven_plugin:1} %if 0%{?_with_bnd_maven_plugin:1} Some of them bail out already on rpmbuild -bs, others pass the rpmbuild lint but fail to actually do what is expected of them during build. This is really a serious lapse in the documentation of "bare words are no longer supported" (and chronically in the documentation of rpm macros in general), much more than a bug in this particular package. Whatever the correct syntax eventually turns out to be, it should work for all current epel versions and their respective versions of rpm. Which, I suspect and fear, might require a rethinking of how and when changes are introduced to rpm itself.