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=708836 --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-05-31 10:51:07 EDT --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: jansi-native.i686: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Jansi Native implements the JNI Libraries used by the Jansi project. jansi-native.i686: E: no-binary jansi-native.i686: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/jansi-native jansi-native.src: W: summary-ended-with-dot C Jansi Native implements the JNI Libraries used by the Jansi project. jansi-native.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jansi-native-1.1.tar.gz jansi-native-debuginfo.i686: E: empty-debuginfo-package jansi-native-javadoc.i686: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. 1. fix summary 2. fix debuginfo package, most probably by defining %global debug_package %{nil} no-binary error is bogus, in this case the binary is "hidden" inside jar [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 javadoc should include license [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. tar.gz has unstable timestamps/md5sums. I suggest using lzma/xz instead [!] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. hawtjni-maven-plugin should be added [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. [x] 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 [x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [x] Package uses %global not %define [x] 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 [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [x] 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) === Maven === [x] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms [-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment [-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven2.jpp.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment [x] Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x] Packages have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils (for %update_maven_depmap macro) === Other suggestions === [x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [-] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: fedora-rawhide-i686 === Issues === 1. license 2. summary 3. debuginfo subpackage 4. native-linux jar contains architecture specific file (libjansi.so). I'm taking this to SIG meeting since we haven't encountered things like this before. It should not be in %{_javadir} since that's for arch agnostic files. 5. the native-linux jar will need another depmap macro call. I'll have to look into how to achieve this properly. 6. fix dependencies on hawtjni [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 [6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames -- 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