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

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


Issues
------
- Dual licensed packages should have "or" as an separator and there
  should be comment about the dual licensing. See
  https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios
  And the notice doesn't specify LGPL version, so I think it should have
  LGPLv2+ istead of LGPLv2


===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
     found: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 157
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/msimacek/reviews/1343161-cryptacular/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
     must be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[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 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 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 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:
[x]: 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
     cryptacular-javadoc
[?]: 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.
[?]: 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]: 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: cryptacular-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          cryptacular-javadoc-1.1.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
          cryptacular-1.1.0-1.fc25.src.rpm
cryptacular.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o
cryptacular.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o
cryptacular.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o
cryptacular.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
cryptacular.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o
cryptacular.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US crypto -> crypt, crypts, crypt o
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.



Requires
--------
cryptacular-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    javapackages-tools

cryptacular (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools
    mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk15on)



Provides
--------
cryptacular-javadoc:
    cryptacular-javadoc

cryptacular:
    cryptacular
    mvn(org.cryptacular:cryptacular)
    mvn(org.cryptacular:cryptacular:pom:)
    osgi(org.cryptacular)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/vt-middleware/cryptacular/archive/v1.1.0.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 7b4cc331361a94cce1df4e979c847652c5b462d4e12fba0ac8bef42aef5b6bd3
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b4cc331361a94cce1df4e979c847652c5b462d4e12fba0ac8bef42aef5b6bd3


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1343161
Buildroot used: rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6

(In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1)
> Package Review
> ==============
> 
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
> 
> 
> Issues
> ------
> - Dual licensed packages should have "or" as an separator and there
>   should be comment about the dual licensing. See
>
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:
> LicensingGuidelines#Dual_Licensing_Scenarios

Done

>   And the notice doesn't specify LGPL version, so I think it should have
>   LGPLv2+ istead of LGPLv2

in the main POM file is specified LGPLv3 and also the file LICENSE-lgpl

> [?]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
>      must be documented in the spec.
Really needed?

Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/cryptacular.spec
SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/cryptacular-1.1.0-1.fc23.src.rpm

Looks ok now. APPROVED

thanks for the review
create new SCM requests:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6146
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/6147

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/cryptacular

cryptacular-1.1.0-1.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d08695fbb5

cryptacular-1.1.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for
instructions on how to install test updates.
You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-d08695fbb5

cryptacular-1.1.0-1.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.