Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877403 --- Comment #26 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it@xxxxxxxxx> --- > For the license concerns reported by @Stanislav I added a ASL 2.0 license > inside SRPM Personally, I would rather include a script file for cleaning the source, rather than adding an extra license file for an unused jar file in the SRPM, but that's a matter of personal preference. Full review below. All fedora-review detected issues can be ignored: The requires warning is due to fedora-review not handling the %{?is_a} macro. Being noarch, you could lose the %{?is_a} macro but it doesn't hurt. Other MUST issues: - exit 1 in %prep when unxepected jars or class files found (as per Stanislav' comment) - You only need to install the license file once if the sub-package requires the base-package where it is present. - A simply comment explaining the license breakdown - Your commented link to the maven pom is wrong. IF you haven't edited the pm file there's no reason why you can't just use the direct link for Source1: Source1 http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=org/tmatesoft/%{name}/%{name}/%{version}/%{name}-%{version}.pom Should: - remove bindir comment in %files section Address the must issues and I'll approve the review Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [x] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package cli, %package javahl See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage [!]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java [!]: Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/svnkit See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names [!]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software' ===== 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]: 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. [x]: 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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package javadoc, %package cli, %package javahl [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review- svnkit/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. *** dont need to specify the license multiple times when requiring the main package [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) [!]: Package do not use a name that already exist Note: A package already exist with this name, please check https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/svnkit [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [!]: Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) [x]: Package is not relocatable. [-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: CheckResultdir [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 6 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package cli, %package javahl [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [!]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [!]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) 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. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [-]: 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]: 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: Source3 (LICENSE-2.0.txt) Source0 (org.tmatesoft.svn_1.7.6.src.zip) [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. [ ]: 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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.1.28 starting... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Mock Version: 1.1.28 INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.28 Start: lock buildroot INFO: installing package(s): /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-javadoc-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot', '/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/', 'install', '/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm', '/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-javadoc-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm', '/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm', '/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm'] Error: Package: svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch (/svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch) Requires: svnkit(x86-64) = 1.7.6-3.fc19 You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem Error: Package: svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch (/svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch) Requires: svnkit(x86-64) = 1.7.6-3.fc19 You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest Rpmlint ------- Checking: svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm svnkit-javadoc-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.src.rpm svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm svnkit-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Jsvn -> Sven svnkit-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jsvn -> Sven svnkit.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name} svnkit.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name} svnkit.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version} svnkit.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version} svnkit.src:129: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir} svnkit-javahl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tigris -> Tigris 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./svnkit-1.7.6/svnkit/src/main/java/org/tmatesoft/svn/core/io/repository/template.jar ./svnkit-1.7.6/svnkit/src/main/resources/org/tmatesoft/svn/core/io/repository/template.jar Requires -------- svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): svnkit(x86-64) = 1.7.6-3.fc19 svnkit-javadoc-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jna >= 3.0 jpackage-utils jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 sequence-library sqljet >= 1.1.4 subversion-javahl >= 1.5 tomcat-servlet-3.0-api >= 7.0.0 trilead-ssh2 >= 213 svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): subversion-javahl >= 1.5 svnkit(x86-64) = 1.7.6-3.fc19 Provides -------- svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm: svnkit-cli = 1.7.6-3.fc19 svnkit-javadoc-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm: svnkit-javadoc = 1.7.6-3.fc19 svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm: mvn(org.tmatesoft.svnkit:svnkit) = 1.7.6 svnkit = 1.7.6-3.fc19 svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm: svnkit-javahl = 1.7.6-3.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- http://www.svnkit.com/org.tmatesoft.svn_1.7.6.src.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 55aa1f530cd3675e5dc4435a869787f4f33466c9c221cccedc822bb071647ae0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 55aa1f530cd3675e5dc4435a869787f4f33466c9c221cccedc822bb071647ae0 Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n svnkit -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hTw2esLhFB&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review