https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=858381 --- Comment #14 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- hi, [!]: Dist tag is present. if use %if 0%{?pkg_rc:1} %global pkg_release 0.%{baserelease}.%{pkg_rc}%{?dist} %else %global pkg_release %{baserelease}%{?dist} %endif pkg_release is %{baserelease}%{?dist} (equal to 2.0-4) and not as in changelog * Fri Oct 05 2012 Clément David <c.david86@xxxxxxxxx> - 2.0-0.4.rc10 please correct it Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [x] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: 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. Note: Cannot find licenses in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#ValidLicenseShortNames ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [-]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [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]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package [-]: 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required. [!]: 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. Note: Cannot find licenses in rpm(s) [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [-]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [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]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Java: [x]: If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [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]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [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 [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: 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). [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}. Note: Source0 (jogl-v2.0-rc10.tar.7z) [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: 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. [x]: %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. Java: [x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== 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 ------- Checking: jogl2-javadoc-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.noarch.rpm jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm jogl2-doc-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.noarch.rpm jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.src.rpm jogl2-debuginfo-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jogl2-doc jogl2-debuginfo jogl2-javadoc jogl2 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- jogl2-javadoc-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jogl2 = 2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19 jpackage-utils jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): gluegen2 java >= 1:1.6.0 jpackage-utils libX11.so.6 libXrandr.so.2 libXrender.so.1 libXxf86vm.so.1 libc.so.6 libjawt.so libjawt.so(SUNWprivate_1.1) rtld(GNU_HASH) jogl2-doc-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jogl2 = 2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19 jogl2-debuginfo-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- jogl2-javadoc-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.noarch.rpm: jogl2-javadoc = 2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19 jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm: jogl2 = 2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19 jogl2(x86-32) = 2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19 libjogl_cg.so libjogl_desktop.so libjogl_mobile.so libnativewindow_awt.so libnativewindow_x11.so libnewt.so mvn(org.jogamp.jogl:jogl) = 2.0 mvn(org.jogamp.jogl:jogl-all) = 2.0 jogl2-doc-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.noarch.rpm: jogl2-doc = 2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19 jogl2-debuginfo-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm: jogl2-debuginfo = 2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19 jogl2-debuginfo(x86-32) = 2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19 Unversioned so-files -------------------- jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm: /usr/lib/jogl2/libjogl_cg.so jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm: /usr/lib/jogl2/libjogl_desktop.so jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm: /usr/lib/jogl2/libjogl_mobile.so jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm: /usr/lib/jogl2/libnativewindow_awt.so jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm: /usr/lib/jogl2/libnativewindow_x11.so jogl2-2.0-0.4.rc10.fc19.i686.rpm: /usr/lib/jogl2/libnewt.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://jogamp.org/deployment/jogamp-current/archive/Sources/jogl-v2.0-rc10.tar.7z : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aebf96e4aaed8f59e2acf6229326563d427176a2e791daa71fe235095606d66d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aebf96e4aaed8f59e2acf6229326563d427176a2e791daa71fe235095606d66d -- 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