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=790258 David Nalley <david@xxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #1 from David Nalley <david@xxxxxxx> 2012-02-16 09:40:41 EST --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [X] Rpmlint output: [ke4qqq@nalleyx200 SPECS]$ rpmlint hamcrest1.2.spec ../SRPMS/hamcrest1.2-1.2-2.fc16.src.rpm ../RPMS/noarch/hamcrest1.2-* hamcrest1.2.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: http://hamcrest.googlecode.com/files/hamcrest-1.2.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found hamcrest1.2.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) matchers -> marchers, matches, catchers hamcrest1.2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matcher -> marcher, matches, catcher hamcrest1.2.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US declaratively -> declarative, decoratively, attractively hamcrest1.2.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://hamcrest.googlecode.com/files/hamcrest-1.2.tgz HTTP Error 404: Not Found hamcrest1.2.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) matchers -> marchers, matches, catchers hamcrest1.2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US matcher -> marcher, matches, catcher hamcrest1.2.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US declaratively -> declarative, decoratively, attractively 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Spelling warnings are drivel No idea why rpmlint is complaining about 404, dl worksforme [!] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. Somewhat concerned about the delimiter here. (though I have seen us use delimiters in practice , see openjdk for a an example of this.) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name <-- says we don't use delimiters. [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: [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 Since -javadoc doesn't require parent package, you need to include LICENSE.txt in -javadoc as well. [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. ad1403dfabe21c88a4007c074e958c3a ../SOURCES/hamcrest-1.2.tgz b4bd43f44d082d77daf7ec564d304cdf ../SOURCES/hamcrest-1.2.tgz.1 b4bd43f44d082d77daf7ec564d304cdf ../SOURCES/hamcrest-1.2.tgz.2 I downloaded twice, so I don't think it's dynamically generating the tarball. [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. [X] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason [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. [-] 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 [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 [!] 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) [X] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [X] 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: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3795813 === Issues === [!] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. Somewhat concerned about the delimiter here. (though I have seen us use delimiters in practice , see openjdk for a an example of this.) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Multiple_packages_with_the_same_base_name <-- says we don't use delimiters. [!] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [!] Package uses %global not %define [!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own Since -javadoc doesn't require parent package, you need to include LICENSE.txt in -javadoc as well. [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. ad1403dfabe21c88a4007c074e958c3a ../SOURCES/hamcrest-1.2.tgz b4bd43f44d082d77daf7ec564d304cdf ../SOURCES/hamcrest-1.2.tgz.1 b4bd43f44d082d77daf7ec564d304cdf ../SOURCES/hamcrest-1.2.tgz.2 I downloaded twice, so I don't think it's dynamically generating the tarball. -- 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