https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822443 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [!]: MUST Buildroot is not present Note: Invalid buildroot found: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-build [ ]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries. [ ]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean is needed only if supporting EPEL [ ]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content. [!]: 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 [ ]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [ ]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: 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. [x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [ ]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [ ]: 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. [ ]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [ ]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: MUST Package installs properly. [ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [!]: 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. [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