[Bug 822443] Review Request: simple-xml - An XML serialization framework for Java

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822443

gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |puntogil@xxxxxxxxx
           Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |puntogil@xxxxxxxxx

--- Comment #1 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> ---
rpmlint simple-xml-2.6.3-1.fc18.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
/home/gil/822443/simple-xml-2.6.3.zip :
  MD5SUM this package     : 31c901b1169ed445b841d7a34016fb81
  MD5SUM upstream package : 31c901b1169ed445b841d7a34016fb81

[ ]: 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.
[x]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[ ]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[ ]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[ ]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[ ]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[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.
[ ]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
     Note: %define third_party_jars bea-stax-api xpp3


==== Java ====
[ ]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
     removed prior to building
[!]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[!]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
     Note: No javadoc html files found in simple-xml-
     javadoc-2.6.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
[!]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[!]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
     symlink)
     Note: Found deprecated versioned javadoc path /usr/share/javadoc/simple-
     xml-2.6.3
[ ]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[ ]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)


==== Maven ====
[x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[ ]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps)
     even when building with ant

Issues:
[!]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
[!]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
     Note: No javadoc html files found in simple-xml-
     javadoc-2.6.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
[!]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
[!]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
     symlink)
     Note: Found deprecated versioned javadoc path /usr/share/javadoc/simple-
     xml-2.6.3
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
[!]: MUST Buildroot is not present
     Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag
[!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
     Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#.25clean
[!]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
     Note: defattr(....) present in %files javadoc section. This is OK if
     packaging for EPEL5. Otherwise not needed
See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#FilePermissions
[!]: MUST Rpmlint output is silent.

rpmlint simple-xml-javadoc-2.6.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

simple-xml-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


rpmlint simple-xml-2.6.3-1.fc18.noarch.rpm

simple-xml.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.


rpmlint simple-xml-2.6.3-1.fc18.src.rpm

1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.


See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]