Mmm, perhaps I should go with the whole enunciate instead.

hi
Please, remove:
Group:          Development/Libraries



Requires:  enunciate-core-annotations


Group:          Documentation
Requires:       jpackage-utils
Requires:       %{name} = %{version}-%{release}

Requires are generated by our java/maven tools
Group fields are not necessary

and change:

Summary:        Javadocs for %{name}
in
Summary:        Javadoc for %{name}

a rpmlint problem in less
thanks

sorry for the noise, forgotten:
remove %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} for avoid duplicate files
use %license macro
e.g.

%files -f .mfiles
%doc README.md
%license license.txt notice.txt

%files javadoc -f .mfiles-javadoc
%license license.txt notice.txt

Thanks gil,

Come to think of it, since I also need enunciate-core and enunciate-jersey-rt, should I make the enunciate as main package instead, and provide enunciate-core-rt, enunciate-core, enunciate-jeresy-rt as sub-packages?

The main package changed to enunciate, it provides following sub packages:
  javadoc
  core-rt
  jersey-rt
 
 otherwise the spec has updated according to comment #2 and #3


Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate.spec
SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-1.31-1.fc24.src.rpm

(In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #4)
> Thanks gil,
> 
> Come to think of it, since I also need enunciate-core and
> enunciate-jersey-rt, should I make the enunciate as main package instead,
> and provide enunciate-core-rt, enunciate-core, enunciate-jeresy-rt as
> sub-packages?

yes, is ok for me. but is available a new version:
https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/releases/tag/v2.5.0
you should add a comment, in the spec file, as to why you want to import this old version

maybe you could remove:
%mvn_package ":enunciate-parent" enunciate
and change or remove the main package in

%files -f .mfiles-%{name}-parent
%license license.txt notice.txt

....

%files core-rt -f .mfiles-%{name}-core-rt
%doc README.md
%license license.txt notice.txt

or

%files parent -f .mfiles-%{name}-parent
%license license.txt notice.txt

...

i dont understand this:

# remove enunciate-core-annotations, because it is in other package 
rm -f %{buildroot}/%{_javadir}/enunciate/enunciate-core-annotations.jar
rm -f %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/maven-metadata/enunciate-enunciate-core-annotations.xml
rm -f %{buildroot}/%{_datadir}/maven-poms/enunciate/enunciate-core-annotations.pom

you should disable this module, and use the other package

and for last you should add missing build-requires:
mvn(com.sun.jersey:jersey-server:1)
mvn(com.sun.jersey:jersey-servlet:1)
mvn(com.sun.jersey.contribs:jersey-spring:1)

Other question, You asked to enunciate-core-annotations package maintainer to import the missing modules and / or upgrade the package?

https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/enunciate-core-annotations

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #7)
> Other question, You asked to enunciate-core-annotations package maintainer
> to import the missing modules and / or upgrade the package?
> 
> https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/enunciate-core-annotations

Should enunciate-core-annotations agree to merge his package with this package, what is the procedure? 
Should the enunciate-core-annotations be retired or something else need to be done?

gil,

 The reasons I do not use the 2.X version are:
   # https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/issues/117
   # https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143213

Patrick,
  Is it possible for me to merge enunciate-core-annotations into this package?


The spec has updated according to comment #6 and #7

Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate.spec
SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-1.31-2.fc24.src.rpm

(In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #9)
> gil,
> 
>  The reasons I do not use the 2.X version are:
>    # https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/issues/117
>    # https://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8143213
for me is ok this release until upstream bug#117 is not fixed

(In reply to Ding-Yi Chen from comment #8)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #7)
> > Other question, You asked to enunciate-core-annotations package maintainer
> > to import the missing modules and / or upgrade the package?
> > 
> > https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/enunciate-core-annotations
> 
> Should enunciate-core-annotations agree to merge his package with this
> package, what is the procedure? 
> Should the enunciate-core-annotations be retired or something else need to
> be done?

maybe this is the better way for more infos see
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Package_Renaming_Process

I've added the provides and obsoletes so it should work with dnf.

Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate.spec
SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-1.31-3.fc24.src.rpm

Created attachment 1176832 [details]
spec file changes

- remove useless main package
- fix jersey version and cglib aId
- fix BRs list

Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=14790219

Created attachment 1176834 [details]
enunciate licensececk

see enunciate-licensececk.txt
this is a list with all source files without license headers
you should report the underlying problem to upstream and
make sure that in the new version this problem is not present
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #14)
> Created attachment 1176834 [details]
> enunciate licensececk
> 
> see enunciate-licensececk.txt
> this is a list with all source files without license headers
> you should report the underlying problem to upstream and
> make sure that in the new version this problem is not present
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/
> LicensingGuidelines#License_Clarification

Filed as https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/issues/450

However, I don't think the fix will apply to 1.X.


Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate.spec
SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-1.31-4.fc24.src.rpm

Merge all sub-package in to main, and add Provides and Obsoletes to enunciate-core-annotations

Spec URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate.spec
SRPM URL: https://dchen.fedorapeople.org/files/rpms/enunciate-1.31-5.fc24.src.rpm

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 (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated", "*No
     copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 385 files have unknown license. Detailed
     output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1352091-enunciate/licensecheck.txt
    NOTE: is enable other module (e.g. enunciate-core) license field must change in: ASL 2.0 and BSD
[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.
[?]: 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]: 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.
[-]: 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:
[-]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     enunciate-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[!]: 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.
[x]: %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: enunciate-1.31-5.fc25.noarch.rpm
          enunciate-javadoc-1.31-5.fc25.noarch.rpm
          enunciate-1.31-5.fc25.src.rpm
enunciate.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javadoc -> java doc, java-doc, avocado
enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Provides:
enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes:
enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Provides:
enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes:
enunciate.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javadoc -> java doc, java-doc, avocado
enunciate.src: W: tag-in-description C Provides:
enunciate.src: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes:
enunciate.src: W: tag-in-description C Provides:
enunciate.src: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes:
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
enunciate.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javadoc -> java doc, java-doc, avocado
enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Provides:
enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes:
enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Provides:
enunciate.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Obsoletes:
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.



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

enunciate (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-tools
    mvn(com.sun.jersey:jersey-server:1)
    mvn(com.sun.jersey:jersey-servlet:1)
    mvn(com.sun.xml.bind:jaxb-impl)
    mvn(javax.annotation:jsr250-api)
    mvn(javax.mail:mail)
    mvn(javax.ws.rs:jsr311-api)
    mvn(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs)
    mvn(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-xc)



Provides
--------
enunciate-javadoc:
    enunciate-javadoc

enunciate:
    enunciate
    mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-core-annotations)
    mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-core-annotations:pom:)
    mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-core-rt)
    mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-core-rt:pom:)
    mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-jersey-rt)
    mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-jersey-rt:pom:)
    mvn(org.codehaus.enunciate:enunciate-parent:pom:)



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/stoicflame/enunciate/archive/v1.31/enunciate-1.31.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 034aad6d16ac52442afaae80b56d5fc1b0c18686332ee61fbac8bbb12f411668
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 034aad6d16ac52442afaae80b56d5fc1b0c18686332ee61fbac8bbb12f411668


Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1352091 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
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

Issues (non blocking):

[!]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.

Please, change the spec file this way:

....
BuildRequires: mvn(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-jaxrs)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.codehaus.jackson:jackson-xc)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.codehaus.mojo:build-helper-maven-plugin)
BuildRequires: mvn(org.easymock:easymock)

BuildArch:     noarch
Provides:      %{name}-core-annotations = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes:     %{name}-core-annotations <= %{old_enunciate_core_annotations_ver}

%description
%{summary}.

%package javadoc
Summary:       Javadoc for %{name}
Provides:      %{name}-core-annotations-javadoc = %{version}-%{release}
Obsoletes:     %{name}-core-annotations-javadoc <= %{old_enunciate_core_annotations_ver}

%description javadoc
This package contains the API documentation for %{name}.

%prep
....

Approved

Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/enunciate (Re-review: enunciate-core-annotations)

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