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=750902 --- Comment #2 from Jaromír Cápík <jcapik@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-11-23 11:38:31 EST --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: $ rpmlint sleep-2.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm sleep.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti sleep.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti sleep.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/sleep-2.1/license.txt 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint sleep-2.1-1.fc17.src.rpm sleep.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti sleep.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [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 [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]. [!] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: LGPLv2 Issue: Some source files contain BSD license statements. Some files contain the following: This software is distributed under the artistic license. Please, clarify this issue with upstream. [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. [x] Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : 1eaa4c491663d81a25e58a4f5e4ee895 MD5SUM upstream package : 1eaa4c491663d81a25e58a4f5e4ee895 [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 or must require 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 [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) [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] 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 [-] 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, ...) [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. [x] 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 file 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 [x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x] 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 : fedora-rawhide-x86_64 === Issues === 1. Rpmlint output - FSF address is allowed to be patched 2. Buildroot definition IS present 3. Licensing - please, clarify the statements mixture in the source file headers with upstream 4. File sections CONTAIN %defattr(-,root,root,-) 5. Package HAS a %clean section which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) 6. Javadoc documentation files are NOT generated 7. Package IS MISSING BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils === Final Notes === 1. Please, submit a bug in the sleep upstream tracker against missing Maven support. [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