Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-xmlbuilder.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-xmlbuilder-0.4-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: XML Builder is a utility that creates simple XML documents using relatively sparse Java code. It is intended to allow for quick and painless creation of XML documents where you might otherwise be tempted to use concatenated strings, and where you would rather not face the tedium and verbosity of coding with JAXP. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Problems - - Looks like this bundles a copy of net/iharder/base64/Base64.java from http://iharder.net/base64 - Add "-" between name and version in %changelog entry - Is upstream alive? Can you ask them to include a copy of the license? ===== 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. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: 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 [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in java- xmlbuilder-javadoc [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: 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 %doc. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/java- xmlbuilder-0.4/review-java-xmlbuilder/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [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). Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DOES 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 %{_mavenpomdir} 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]: 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]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Java: [x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: java-xmlbuilder-0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm java-xmlbuilder-javadoc-0.4-1.fc18.noarch.rpm java-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint java-xmlbuilder-javadoc java-xmlbuilder java-xmlbuilder.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- java-xmlbuilder-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils java-xmlbuilder (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils Provides -------- java-xmlbuilder-javadoc: java-xmlbuilder-javadoc java-xmlbuilder: java-xmlbuilder mvn(com.jamesmurty.utils:java-xmlbuilder) MD5-sum check ------------- Using local file /export/home/orion/redhat/java-xmlbuilder-0.4/java-xmlbuilder-0.4-clean-src-svn .tar.gz as upstream file:///export/home/orion/redhat/java-xmlbuilder-0.4/java-xmlbuilder-0.4-clean-src-svn.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a898754d8cee087c36c68edfc5049e40b2d022f503de8f3aa1373d9536 8a5c78 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a898754d8cee087c36c68edfc5049e40b2d022f503de8f3aa1373d9536 8a5c78 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -n java-xmlbuilder
(In reply to comment #1) > Problems - > - Looks like this bundles a copy of net/iharder/base64/Base64.java from > http://iharder.net/base64 > - Add "-" between name and version in %changelog entry never used... really required? > - Is upstream alive? Can you ask them to include a copy of the license? yes ... i think ... (the package contains a single java file... http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/iharder/Base64-2.3.7.zip), i have some problem for do this now ( problem with my web connection ...) if you have time for this, please can you do this for me? http://sourceforge.net/projects/iharder/?source=navbar under Public Domain thanks
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-xmlbuilder.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-xmlbuilder-0.4-1.fc18.src.rpm
- Still bundles iharder/base64 - Sorry about the - in the changelog, I guess that was old school - I believe the standard now is to *not* separately download and include a license file. But upstream (http://code.google.com/p/java-xmlbuilder/) should be asked to include one.
(In reply to comment #4) > - I believe the standard now is to *not* separately download and include a > license file. But upstream (http://code.google.com/p/java-xmlbuilder/) > should be asked to include one. The thing is if we want to include ASL 2.0 code in Fedora it *has* to have license included as per point 4.1 of the license[1]. [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#redistribution
Apart from that there's also this from fedora-review (RC) Issues: ======= - Maven packages should use new style packaging Note: If possible update your package to latest guidelines See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java - Javadoc subpackages do not have Requires: jpackage-utils Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the buildsystem See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
(In reply to comment #6) > Apart from that there's also this from fedora-review (RC) > > Issues: > ======= > - Maven packages should use new style packaging > Note: If possible update your package to latest guidelines i cant i use F18, for now > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven > - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils > Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is > pulled in by maven-local can remove in the next release ? > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java > - Javadoc subpackages do not have Requires: jpackage-utils > Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the > buildsystem > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java J-U is already required
(In reply to comment #5) > (In reply to comment #4) > > - I believe the standard now is to *not* separately download and include a > > license file. But upstream (http://code.google.com/p/java-xmlbuilder/) > > should be asked to include one. > > The thing is if we want to include ASL 2.0 code in Fedora it *has* to have > license included as per point 4.1 of the license[1]. > > [1] http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.html#redistribution open this bug http://code.google.com/p/java-xmlbuilder/issues/detail?id=13
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-xmlbuilder.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-xmlbuilder-0.4-2.fc18.src.rpm - install upstream license and notice files java-xmlbuilder don't include the license file in the stable branch
(In reply to comment #7) > > - Javadoc subpackages do not have Requires: jpackage-utils > > Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the > > buildsystem > > See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java > J-U is already required Point was that there is no need to because RPM will automatically generate that requires. Wording of that check in f-r has been fixed now
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-xmlbuilder.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-xmlbuilder-0.4-2.fc18.src.rpm - removed superfluous from Javadoc subpackages Requires: jpackage-utils
The blocker for me is bundling iharder/base64. That needs to be packaged separately.
(In reply to comment #12) > The blocker for me is bundling iharder/base64. That needs to be packaged > separately. the file is a customization version of iharder/base64... if i create anew package i must patch with the changes done by java-xmlbuilder developer ... and *i do not need* iharder/base64 in a separate new package
Then you need to file for a bundling exception.
(In reply to comment #14) > Then you need to file for a bundling exception. I'm sorry, how?
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:No_Bundled_Libraries#Exceptions
FPC's trac link i broken or the page is currently offline thanks
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-xmlbuilder.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/java-xmlbuilder-0.6-1.fc18.src.rpm - update to 0.6
(In reply to comment #18) > - update to 0.6 resolved bundled iharder/base64.
Looks good then. Approved.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: java-xmlbuilder Short Description: XML Builder Java library for creating XML documents Owners: gil Branches: f18 f19 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
java-xmlbuilder-0.6-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/java-xmlbuilder-0.6-1.fc19
java-xmlbuilder-0.6-1.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/java-xmlbuilder-0.6-1.fc18
java-xmlbuilder-0.6-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
java-xmlbuilder-0.6-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.
java-xmlbuilder-0.6-1.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.