https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847980 Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [-]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [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. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. Java: [x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [x]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint maven-plugin-annotations 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Rpmlint ------- Checking: maven-plugin-annotations-javadoc-3.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm maven-plugin-annotations-3.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm maven-plugin-annotations-3.1-1.fc19.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- maven-plugin-annotations-javadoc-3.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils maven-plugin-annotations-3.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils maven Provides -------- maven-plugin-annotations-javadoc-3.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: maven-plugin-annotations-javadoc = 3.1-1.fc19 maven-plugin-annotations-3.1-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: maven-plugin-annotations = 3.1-1.fc19 mvn(org.apache.maven.plugin-tools:maven-plugin-annotations) = 3.1 MD5-sum check ------------- http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugin-tools/maven-plugin-annotations/3.1/maven-plugin-annotations-3.1-sources.jar : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : db640b8eb6f314e7d4d497cc6e123a712fda60c5eb373536f3d9d76642cc0dc4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : db640b8eb6f314e7d4d497cc6e123a712fda60c5eb373536f3d9d76642cc0dc4 http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/apache/maven/plugin-tools/maven-plugin-annotations/3.1/maven-plugin-annotations-3.1.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e48a5204cfacc45a0885ff5ca0a6e78001d472e21ec1d7255e3210b53f0ee1a5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e48a5204cfacc45a0885ff5ca0a6e78001d472e21ec1d7255e3210b53f0ee1a5 Generated by fedora-review 0.2.3 (6315f8e) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :./try-fedora-review -b 847980 Looks good. It would be nice to describe situation with code.google.com project and how they renamed somewhere in the specfile for future reference. APPROVED -- 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