Spec URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin.spec SRPM URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-1.el9.src.rpm Description: Unretirement of maven-javadoc-plugin This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file ADDITIONAL_LICENSE_INFO is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maven-javadoc-plugin See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [ ]: 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or Public domain", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0". 52 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/maven-javadoc- plugin/licensecheck.txt [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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. [ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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]: 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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [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]: 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag Note: Could not download Source0: ttps://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-javadoc- plugin/3.12.0/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-source-release.zip See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/SourceURL/ [ ]: 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. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: [ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc-3.12.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-1.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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/tmplye1u0w0')] checks: 32, packages: 3 maven-javadoc-plugin.noarch: E: spelling-error ('javadocs', '%description -l en_US javadocs -> java docs, java-docs, avocados') maven-javadoc-plugin.src: E: spelling-error ('javadocs', '%description -l en_US javadocs -> java docs, java-docs, avocados') maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc.noarch: E: spelling-error ('javadocs', '%description -l en_US javadocs -> java docs, java-docs, avocados') maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99% maven-javadoc-plugin.spec: W: no-%check-section maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/maven-javadoc-plugin/copy.svg maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/maven-javadoc-plugin/legal/LICENSE maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/maven-javadoc-plugin/link.svg maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/maven-javadoc-plugin/script.js maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/maven-javadoc-plugin/search-page.js maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/javadoc/maven-javadoc-plugin/search.js 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 9 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 9 badness; has taken 0.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "maven-javadoc-plugin". (none): E: there is no installed rpm "maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.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 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- maven-javadoc-plugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem mvn(com.thoughtworks.qdox:qdox) mvn(commons-io:commons-io) mvn(javax.inject:javax.inject) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-text) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpcore) mvn(org.apache.maven.doxia:doxia-integration-tools) mvn(org.apache.maven.doxia:doxia-sink-api) mvn(org.apache.maven.doxia:doxia-site-renderer) mvn(org.apache.maven.reporting:maven-reporting-api) mvn(org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-util) mvn(org.apache.maven.shared:maven-common-artifact-filters) mvn(org.apache.maven.shared:maven-invoker) mvn(org.apache.maven.shared:maven-shared-utils) mvn(org.apache.maven.wagon:wagon-provider-api) mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-archiver) mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-archiver) mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-interactivity-api) mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-io) mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-java) mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-utils:4.0.2) mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-xml) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- maven-javadoc-plugin: maven-javadoc-plugin mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-javadoc-plugin:pom:) maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc: maven-javadoc-plugin-javadoc Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-build/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0/src/test/resources/unit/test-javadoc-test/junit/junit/3.8.1/junit-3.8.1.jar ./maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-build/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0/src/test/resources/unit/taglet-test/artifact-taglet/org/tullmann/taglets/1.0/taglets-1.0.jar ./maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-build/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0/src/test/resources/unit/stylesheetfile-test/artifact-stylesheetfile/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-javadoc-plugin/unit/stylesheetfile-test/1.0-SNAPSHOT/stylesheetfile-test-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar ./maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-build/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0/src/test/resources/unit/helpfile-test/artifact-helpfile/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-javadoc-plugin/unit/helpfile-test/1.0-SNAPSHOT/helpfile-test-1.0-SNAPSHOT.jar ./maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-build/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0/src/test/resources/unit/fix-test/repo/org/apache/maven/plugins/maven-javadoc-plugin/unit/fix-test/1.0/fix-test-1.0.jar ./maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-build/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0/src/test/resources/unit/doclet-test/artifact-doclet/umlgraph/UMLGraph/2.1/UMLGraph-2.1.jar ./maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-build/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0/src/test/resources/unit/doclet-path-test/artifact-doclet/umlgraph/UMLGraph-bis/2.1/UMLGraph-bis-2.1.jar ./maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-build/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0/src/it/mrm/repository/mjavadoc450-static.jar ./maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-build/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0/src/it/mrm/3rdparty/doclet-1.0.jar ./maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-build/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0/src/it/mrm/3rdparty/doclet-1.0.jar/org/apache/maven/plugins/javadoc/its/Doclet.class Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name maven-javadoc-plugin --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Java, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Python, Haskell, SugarActivity, Perl, Ocaml, PHP, C/C++ Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Fedora Account System Username: kathenas Regards Phil
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9853047 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2417921-maven-javadoc-plugin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09853047-maven-javadoc-plugin/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 - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maven-javadoc-plugin Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Jar files in source (see attachment) Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies 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://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin.spec SRPM URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-1.el9.src.rpm Minor update. Make exclusive to to java arches.
Created attachment 2117687 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9853047 to 9878133
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9878133 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2417921-maven-javadoc-plugin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09878133-maven-javadoc-plugin/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 - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maven-javadoc-plugin Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Jar files in source (see attachment) Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies 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://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin.spec SRPM URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-1.el9.src.rpm Use archive on maven site for SOURCE downloads.
Created attachment 2118478 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9878133 to 9902892
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9902892 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2417921-maven-javadoc-plugin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09902892-maven-javadoc-plugin/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 - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maven-javadoc-plugin Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Jar files in source (see attachment) Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies 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://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin.spec SRPM URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-1.el9.src.rpm Use official download server on maven site for SOURCE downloads.
Created attachment 2118504 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9902892 to 9903414
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9903414 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2417921-maven-javadoc-plugin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09903414-maven-javadoc-plugin/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 - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maven-javadoc-plugin Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Jar files in source (see attachment) Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies 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://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin.spec SRPM URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-1.el9.src.rpm Change BuildRequires for common io.
Spec URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin.spec SRPM URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-1.el9.src.rpm Update.
Created attachment 2119467 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9903414 to 9938878
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9938878 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2417921-maven-javadoc-plugin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09938878-maven-javadoc-plugin/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 - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maven-javadoc-plugin Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Jar files in source (see attachment) Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies 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://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin.spec SRPM URL: https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-javadoc-plugin-3.12.0-1.el9.src.rpm Dependency reordering.
Created attachment 2121026 [details] The .spec file difference from Copr build 9938878 to 9973953
Copr build: https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/build/9973953 (succeeded) Review template: https://download.copr.fedorainfracloud.org/results/@fedora-review/fedora-review-2417921-maven-javadoc-plugin/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/09973953-maven-javadoc-plugin/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 - A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maven-javadoc-plugin Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Jar files in source (see attachment) Read more: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies 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.