[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #16 from Jon Ciesla  ---
Package request has been approved:
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/bitcoinj

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #15 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Thanks for the review

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags|fedora-review?  |fedora-review+



--- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo  ---
Approved

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #13 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
> [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
> must be documented in the spec.
> Please, add an comment/s

Added comments in the spec file.

> [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
> justified.
> Please, add an comment/s

The latest upstream 0.14.3 include copyright header except generated files for
all the files we ship in the RPM.


Spec URL: https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/bitcoinj/bitcoinj.spec
SRPM URL:
https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/bitcoinj/bitcoinj-0.14.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #12 from gil cattaneo  ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #10)
> Issues:
> 
> [!]: 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", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
>  "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
>  268 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
>  /home/gil/1330316-bitcoinj/licensecheck.txt
> 
>  This file is under BSD license
> bitcoinj-0.14.3/core/src/main/java/org/bitcoinj/crypto/PBKDF2SHA512.java and
>  License field should be: ASL 2.0 and BSD and MIT

Sorry, the license field is correct use ASL 2.0 and MIT
Remains to resolve the problems reported above ( Comment#10 )

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #11 from gil cattaneo  ---
the comments should be added in the spec file

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) |




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #10 from gil cattaneo  ---
Issues:

[!]: 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", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
 "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
 268 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/gil/1330316-bitcoinj/licensecheck.txt

 This file is under BSD license
bitcoinj-0.14.3/core/src/main/java/org/bitcoinj/crypto/PBKDF2SHA512.java and
 License field should be: ASL 2.0 and BSD and MIT

[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown
 must be documented in the spec.
 Please, add an comment/s

[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
 justified.
 Please, add an comment/s

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Status|NEW |ASSIGNED



--- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo  ---
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.
[!]: 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", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)",
 "BSD (3 clause)", "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)".
 268 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
 /home/gil/1330316-bitcoinj/licensecheck.txt

 This file is under BSD license
bitcoinj-0.14.3/core/src/main/java/org/bitcoinj/crypto/PBKDF2SHA512.java and
 License field should be: ASL 2.0 and BSD and MIT

[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.
 Please, add an comment/s
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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 2 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 

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #8 from gil cattaneo  ---
have you time for review this
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=1342749 ?
thanks in advance

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #7 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
> Please add 
> BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin)
> and for prevent new build failure add also
> BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin)
Added BuildRequires.

> Is available a new release:
> https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.3
> Please, considering upgrade
Bumped the version to latest upstream, new SRPM:
https://jonny.fedorapeople.org/bitcoinj/bitcoinj-0.14.3-1.fc24.src.rpm

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo  ---
hi
build fails:
[ERROR] Plugin org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:1.3 or one of its
dependencies could not be resolved: Cannot access central
(https://repo.maven.apache.org/maven2) in offline mode and the artifact
org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin:jar:1.3 has not been downloaded
from it before. -> [Help 1]
Please add 
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin)
and for prevent new build failure add also
BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-source-plugin)

Is available a new release:
https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/releases/tag/v0.14.3
Please, considering upgrade

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

   Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

  Flags||fedora-review?



-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||1331589




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1331589
[Bug 1331589] Review Request: multibit-commons - Classes and libraries to
support MultiBit projects
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #5 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Updated the SPEC with the suggestion proposed by gil

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #4 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Nice, thanks

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316

gil cattaneo  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 CC||punto...@libero.it



--- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo  ---
Hi Jonny
suggestion:
use

%pom_add_dep org.iq80.leveldb:leveldb::compile core "true"
%pom_add_dep org.fusesource.hawtjni:hawtjni-runtime::compile core
"true"

OR

%pom_add_dep org.iq80.leveldb:leveldb:: core "true"
%pom_add_dep org.fusesource.hawtjni:hawtjni-runtime:: core
"true"

and remove
%global __requires_exclude
^mvn\\(org.iq80.leveldb:leveldb\\)$|^mvn\\(org.fusesource.hawtjni:hawtjni-runtime\\)$

Regards

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #1 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13800596

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316



--- Comment #2 from Jonny Heggheim  ---
License headers in source files is discussed here
https://github.com/bitcoinj/bitcoinj/issues/1248

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org

[Bug 1330316] Review Request: bitcoinj - A Java library implementation of the Bitcoin protocol

[bugzilla]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1330316

Jonny Heggheim  changed:

   What|Removed |Added

 Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG)




Referenced Bugs:

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183
[Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug
-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org