https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=821356 --- Comment #3 from Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required [x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5 [x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [!]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. papaki requires javassist during runtime, but javassist is not listed in requirements. papaki references the following classes from javassist: javassist.ClassPool javassist.CtClass javassist.CtConstructor javassist.CtField javassist.CtMethod javassist.LoaderClassPath javassist.Modifier javassist.NotFoundException javassist.bytecode.ClassFile [x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [!]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf is only needed if supporting EPEL5 Build root is being removed in %install section. This is not required in any of currently suipported releases of Fedora. Please remove the following line from the spec file: %{__rm} -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [x]: MUST 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. [x]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent. rpmlint papaki-1.0.0-0.1.Beta3.fc18.noarch.rpm papaki.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/papaki HTTP Error 403: Forbidden papaki.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/papaki/papaki-core.jar papaki.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/papaki/papaki-indexer.jar 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. The URL is invalid. It results in HTTP 404. Classpath are present in manifest files. Please refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#class-path-in-manifest for instructions how to remove classpaths from manifests. rpmlint papaki-javadoc-1.0.0-0.1.Beta3.fc18.noarch.rpm papaki-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados papaki-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/papaki HTTP Error 403: Forbidden 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The URL is invalid. It results in HTTP 404. The spelling-error warning can be ignored. rpmlint papaki-1.0.0-0.1.Beta3.fc18.src.rpm papaki.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://www.jboss.org/papaki HTTP Error 403: Forbidden papaki.src: W: invalid-url Source0: papaki-1.0.0.Beta3.tar.gz 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. [x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. /home/kojan/review/821356/papaki-indexer-1.0.0.Beta3.pom : MD5SUM this package : 6e0308e5ac4b5855b0a79669ac8c141b MD5SUM upstream package : 6e0308e5ac4b5855b0a79669ac8c141b /home/kojan/review/821356/papaki-core-1.0.0.Beta3.pom : MD5SUM this package : e76f4800fcfd888d7d776158ecead192 MD5SUM upstream package : e76f4800fcfd888d7d776158ecead192 [x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: MUST Package contains a SysV-style init script if in need of one. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: MUST Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: SHOULD If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Upstream package doesn't contain license file. You SHOUL query upstream to include the linecse text. [x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present. [x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [!]: SHOULD Package functions as described. The package description is very short and vague. Please provide more details about the package in the description. (At least add the text from README.txt file). [x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL. [-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [-]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. ==== Java ==== [x]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ==== Maven ==== [x]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ==== Summary ==== Please: 1) remove "rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT" line, 2) copy more datails from README.txt into %description, 3) remove classpaths from manifests, 4) provide correct URL, 5) add javassist to Requires. -- 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