https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=822831 --- Comment #3 from Sebastian Dyroff <bugs@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I am not a package maintainer and I am still looking for a sponsor. I used gentlyweb-utils_1.5.orig.tar.gz for the review. Hope that the upstream file with the right sha256sum will become available again. I will annotate the checks that i have not marked as pass in the review below. [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. see Matts' comment. It seem that i could download a file from upstream, but it was not exactly the same. [-]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. I think this is not applicable. I found no recommended compiler flag for java. The package does not set java compiler flags. [-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. No GUI app. [?]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Some checks did not pass. [-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. No subpackages [-]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. I don't know if it requires jpackage-utils. Maybe i missed something. [-]: SHOULD Package functions as described. It is a library. It contains the class files and so on. Nothing really to test here. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. I found version 2.2 is already released. [?]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct I am not firm with maven. So i can't tell. It has a depmap call. It seems as if does not rely on other java code. The depmap doesn't list any other package. [!]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass. There are no tests, upstream source doesn't include any test-cases. This is the output of fedora-review including my manual checks. Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Pass ! = Fail ? = Not evaluated ==== Generic ==== [x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [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. [-]: 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 Package contains no bundled libraries. [x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format. [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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package [x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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. [?]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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 [x]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)" For detailed output of licensecheck see file: /tmp/822831 -gentlyweb-utils/licensecheck.txt [-]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters. [x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: MUST If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: MUST Package installs properly. [x]: MUST Package is not relocatable. [ ]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /tmp/822831-gentlyweb- utils/diff.txt [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 systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: SHOULD Buildroot is not present Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine [x]: SHOULD Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required [-]: 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. [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. [!]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. [ ]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [ ]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SHOULD SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [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. [x]: 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. [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 ==== [?]: 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 Issues: [!]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /tmp/822831-gentlyweb- utils/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL Rpmlint ------- Checking: gentlyweb-utils-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm gentlyweb-utils-1.5-1.fc17.src.rpm gentlyweb-utils-javadoc-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint gentlyweb-utils-javadoc 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- gentlyweb-utils-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils gentlyweb-utils-javadoc-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- gentlyweb-utils-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm: gentlyweb-utils = 1.5-1.fc17 mvn(net.sf.josql:gentlyweb-utils) gentlyweb-utils-javadoc-1.5-1.fc17.noarch.rpm: gentlyweb-utils-javadoc = 1.5-1.fc17 MD5-sum check ------------- http://gentlyweb-utils.sourcearchive.com/downloads/1.5-1/gentlyweb-utils_1.5.orig.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 45476a48caaadbb74fef05e068fe5be215a1a21d148fd1c8eccbe58e3c9bd908 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e3b0c44298fc1c149afbf4c8996fb92427ae41e4649b934ca495991b7852b855 http://repo.fusesource.com/nexus/content/groups/public/net/sf/josql/gentlyweb-utils/1.5/gentlyweb-utils-1.5.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aa65a035bd00cc70be86bda31f953074597c8601f158c25355edd6906675685c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aa65a035bd00cc70be86bda31f953074597c8601f158c25355edd6906675685c diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.2.2 (9f8c0e5) last change: 2012-08-09 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 822831 External plugins: -- 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