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=723703 --- Comment #4 from Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-02 18:55:56 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Package Review > ============== > > Key: > - = N/A > x = Check > ! = Problem > ? = Not evaluated > > === REQUIRED ITEMS === > [x] Rpmlint output: > [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. > [!] Buildroot definition is not present > Please remove BuildRoot. > > [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: > [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 > [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. > MD5SUM this package : 35a9b7f73874a5b64408f970ae82f9b9 > MD5SUM upstream package: f1c34f0b4c4342fdfbe6761a17adacf7 > md5sums do not match but extracted sources are the same as the upstream > snapshot version. > However the sources contain source for unrelated projects > > [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. > [!] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with > good reason > Please remove. > > [x] Permissions on files are set properly. > [!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} > (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) > please remove %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} > > [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > mixing) > [!] Package contains code, or permissable content. > See comment above about non-gprof code > > [-] 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. > [-] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc > subpackage > [-] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) > [-] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils > [-] 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, ...) > [x] 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. > [-] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) > [-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when > building with ant > [-] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap > > === Maven === > [-] 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 "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why > it's needed in a comment > [-] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun > [-] Packages DOES NOT 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 > [x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) > [x] Latest version is packaged. > [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. > Tested on: > x86_64 f15 + build deps from rawhide > and x86_64 on f16 > === Issues === > Summary of the issues from above: > > [!] Buildroot definition is not present > Please remove BuildRoot. > > [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided > in the spec URL. > MD5SUM this package : 35a9b7f73874a5b64408f970ae82f9b9 > MD5SUM upstream package: f1c34f0b4c4342fdfbe6761a17adacf7 > md5sums do not match but extracted sources are the same as the upstream > snapshot version. > However the sources contain source for unrelated projects > > [!] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with > good reason > Please remove. > The files from my Comment 1 had already removed the defattr. > [!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} > (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) > please remove %{__rm} -rf %{buildroot} > The package no longer has a %clean section. There is an rm -rf buildroot at the start of the %install section. Are you claiming this has to be removed as well? > [!] Package contains code, or permissable content. > See comment above about non-gprof code > The source tarball uses an upstream tarball from git based on a particular commit hash. Optionally this could be trimmed via an external script, but there is no content that needs to be removed for the build to occur. If it is recommended that the tarball be smaller at the cost of having it fetchable upstream, I will concur. > > Approved with the fixes from above. -- 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