Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed



===== 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:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "BSD (2 clause)", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright*
     MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Unknown or generated". 81 files have unknown
     license.
[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.
[-]: 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.
[x]: 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.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: 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]: 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]: 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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 does not contain duplicates in %files.
[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 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.

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: 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
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) 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 %{_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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in ua-parser-
     java-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[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:
[!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
     Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached
     diff).
     See: (this test has no URL)
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
     Note: Test run failed
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: ua-parser-java-1.3.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          ua-parser-java-javadoc-1.3.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
          ua-parser-java-1.3.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
ua-parser-java.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US regex -> regexp, reg ex, reg-ex
ua-parser-java.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US regexes -> regexps, reg exes, reg-exes
ua-parser-java.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml -> yam, yams, yawl
ua-parser-java.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US regex -> regexp, reg ex, reg-ex
ua-parser-java.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US regexes -> regexps, reg exes, reg-exes
ua-parser-java.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml -> yam, yams, yawl
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
<mock-chroot>[root@mistress /]# rpmlint ua-parser-java ua-parser-java-javadoc
ua-parser-java.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US regexes -> regexps, regex's, reg exes
ua-parser-java.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US yaml -> yam, yams, yawl
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
<mock-chroot>[root@mistress /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Diff spec file in url and in SRPM
---------------------------------
--- /home/goldmann/work/review/1179342-ua-parser-java/srpm/ua-parser-java.spec	2015-01-18 13:22:14.783542017 +0100
+++ /home/goldmann/work/review/1179342-ua-parser-java/srpm-unpacked/ua-parser-java.spec	2014-03-07 14:36:20.000000000 +0100
@@ -8,4 +8,5 @@
 Source0:       https://github.com/tobie/ua-parser/archive/java-%{version}.tar.gz
 
+BuildRequires: java-devel
 BuildRequires: mvn(commons-collections:commons-collections)
 BuildRequires: mvn(junit:junit)
@@ -38,5 +39,4 @@
 
 %build
-
 cd java
 %mvn_file :%{oname} %{oname}


Requires
--------
ua-parser-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    jpackage-utils
    mvn(commons-collections:commons-collections)
    mvn(org.yaml:snakeyaml)

ua-parser-java-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
ua-parser-java:
    mvn(ua_parser:ua-parser)
    mvn(ua_parser:ua-parser:pom:)
    ua-parser-java

ua-parser-java-javadoc:
    ua-parser-java-javadoc



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/tobie/ua-parser/archive/java-1.3.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 2fc3ab0a48d96026bf5e5bc62b448a9e31de51de07ffec697518c1dd887c068c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2fc3ab0a48d96026bf5e5bc62b448a9e31de51de07ffec697518c1dd887c068c


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -b 1179342
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Although the spec in the review and the .src.rpm is not the same, the difference is minimal and justified.

========
APPROVED
========

Thanks for the review!

i will solve the rpmlint issue on import


New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: ua-parser-java
Short Description: Java implementation of user agent parser
Upstream URL: https://github.com/tobie/ua-parser/
Owners: gil
Branches: f21
InitialCC: java-sig

Git done (by process-git-requests).

ua-parser-java-1.3.0-1.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ua-parser-java-1.3.0-1.fc21

ua-parser-java-1.3.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.

ua-parser-java-1.3.0-1.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.