Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=700199 --- Comment #11 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-19 17:33:58 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: tomcat-lib.noarch: W: no-documentation tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/java/tomcat/tomcat-jsp-2.2-api.jar ../tomcat-jsp-2.2-api.jar tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/java/tomcat/tomcat-servlet-3.0-api.jar ../tomcat-servlet-3.0-api.jar tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/tomcat/commons-dbcp.jar /usr/share/java/apache-commons-dbcp.jar tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/tomcat/commons-collections.jar /usr/share/java/apache-commons-collections.jar tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/tomcat/log4j.jar /usr/share/java/log4j.jar tomcat-lib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/tomcat/jasper-jdt.jar /usr/share/java/ecj.jar tomcat.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US servlet -> settler tomcat.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/tomcat These are OK. tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/tomcat 0775L This looks wrong. Do we really want /etc/tomcat that open? tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/log/tomcat 0775L tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/tomcat 0775L tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/tomcat/Catalina/localhost 0775L Same for previous three. tomcat.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/tomcat/lib /usr/share/java/tomcat tomcat.noarch: E: non-readable /etc/tomcat/tomcat-users.xml 0660L OK tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/tomcat 0775L tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /etc/tomcat/Catalina 0775L tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/tomcat/work 0775L tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/cache/tomcat/temp 0775L tomcat.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps 0775L Should these be that open? tomcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomcat-digest tomcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary dtomcat tomcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomcat-tool-wrapper tomcat.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tomcat tomcat.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm OK. The preun is simply cleaning the work and temp directories. tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME} tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME} tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME} tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME} tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME} tomcat.noarch: W: incoherent-subsys /etc/init.d/tomcat ${NAME} Can you ellaborate on this? tomcat-docs-webapp.noarch: W: no-documentation tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: W: no-documentation OK. tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps/host-manager/META-INF 0775L tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps/host-manager 0775L tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps/host-manager/WEB-INF 0775L tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps/host-manager/WEB-INF/jsp 0775L tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps/manager/WEB-INF 0775L tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps/manager/images 0775L tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps/manager/META-INF 0775L tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps/manager 0775L tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps/host-manager/images 0775L tomcat-admin-webapps.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /var/lib/tomcat/webapps/manager/WEB-INF/jsp 0775L Is tomcat really writing into these folders? I don't think so and they might use standard permissions. tomcat-webapps.noarch: W: no-documentation tomcat-jsp-2.2-api.noarch: W: no-documentation tomcat-servlet-3.0-api.noarch: W: no-documentation tomcat-servlet-3.0-api.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/tomcat-servlet-api tomcat-el-2.2-api.noarch: W: no-documentation OK. [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [x] Buildroot definition is not present [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: ASL 2.0 [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. [!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own el-api and servlet-api are independent and should have license. [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [!] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils Needed because /usr/share/javadoc is provided a jpackage-utils [x] Package uses %global not %define [-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [-] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [-] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [x] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly) === Other suggestions === [x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. === Issues === 1. See rpmlint comments. 2. Missing license for el-api and servlet-api 3. Missing dependency on jpackage-utils for the javadoc subpackage -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review