Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=853922 --- Comment #14 from Tomas Radej <tradej@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines >>>> Issues are described below: [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. >>>> You are using directories owned by tomcat (e. g. the line 85 or 99). >>>> You need to put Requires: tomcat to your spec file. That also makes >>>> the creation of the folders redundant. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. >>>> The packages you mention in 'how to test' and packages owning files that >>>> you link to (line 78+ in guacamole.spec) must be mentioned in Requires, >>>> so that they are installed automatically. That is the point of having >>>> things packaged in the first place. Please, put all the required packages >>>> into Requires. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. >>>> As far as I understand, Guacamole is a tomcat web app. Since web app >>>> guidelines aren't in place yet, I hereby ask you not to install guacamole >>>> into /usr/share/webapps. That is for two reasons: a) the directory isn't >>>> owned by any package (see >>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#File_and_Directory_Ownership) >>>> and b) If you created the package to own that directory, and the final >>>> version of the guidelines was different from the current one, it would >>>> take a great amount of work to migrate the existing solution to the one >>>> compliant with the approved guidelines. So, until the Web App Guidelines >>>> are approved and in place, I hereby ask you to refrain from installing >>>> anything in the /usr/share/webapps directory. Please use only >>>> /var/lib/tomcat/webapps. >>>> Also, I am not convinced that the file guacamole.properties should be >>>> installed in /usr/share/tomcat/lib. For one, it's not a library, and >>>> since stuff in /usr is read-only, it makes no sense to have a config >>>> file in there. Having the file in /etc/guacamole should be enough. [!]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant >>>> Pom.xml file is present, but is not installed. Please, install it. [!]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) >>>> Line 96 should not copy the apidocs folder, but its contents: >>>> cp -rp target/site/apidocs/* %{buildroot}%{javadocdir}/%{name}/ >>>> Currently there is the unnecessary directory apidocs in the path. Notes: [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. >>>> You are copying files without the -p switch, which preserves timestamps. >>>> It is not mandatory, but it would be nice having it. [ ]: Package Description >>>> It would be nice if the description didn't start with the word Guacamole. ===== 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [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 [!]: 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 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: "AGPL (v3 or later)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/tradej/reviews/853922-guacamole/licensecheck.txt [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]: No %config files under /usr. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s) [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [!]: 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. [!]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 81920 bytes in 3 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [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 [!]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [!]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant ===== 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q --requires). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [-]: 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. [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. [!]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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. Rpmlint ------- Checking: guacamole-0.7.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm guacamole-0.7.0-1.fc19.src.rpm guacamole-javadoc-0.7.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm guacamole.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Guacamole guacamole.noarch: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+ guacamole.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/webapps/guacamole/guacamole/WEB-INF/lib/guacamole-common.jar /usr/share/java/guacamole/guacamole-common.jar guacamole.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/webapps/guacamole/guacamole/guacamole-common-js /usr/share/guacamole-common-js guacamole.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/webapps/guacamole/guacamole/WEB-INF/lib/jcl-over-slf4j.jar /usr/share/java/slf4j/jcl-over-slf4j.jar guacamole.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/webapps/guacamole/guacamole/WEB-INF/lib/guacamole-ext.jar /usr/share/java/guacamole/guacamole-ext.jar guacamole.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/webapps/guacamole/guacamole/WEB-INF/lib/api.jar /usr/share/java/slf4j/api.jar guacamole.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Guacamole guacamole.src: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+ guacamole-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+ 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint guacamole-javadoc guacamole guacamole-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+ guacamole.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Guacamole guacamole.noarch: W: invalid-license AGPLv3+ guacamole.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/webapps/guacamole/guacamole/WEB-INF/lib/guacamole-common.jar /usr/share/java/guacamole/guacamole-common.jar guacamole.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/webapps/guacamole/guacamole/guacamole-common-js /usr/share/guacamole-common-js guacamole.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/webapps/guacamole/guacamole/WEB-INF/lib/jcl-over-slf4j.jar /usr/share/java/slf4j/jcl-over-slf4j.jar guacamole.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/webapps/guacamole/guacamole/WEB-INF/lib/guacamole-ext.jar /usr/share/java/guacamole/guacamole-ext.jar guacamole.noarch: W: dangling-symlink /usr/share/webapps/guacamole/guacamole/WEB-INF/lib/api.jar /usr/share/java/slf4j/api.jar 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- guacamole-0.7.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): config(guacamole) = 0.7.0-1.fc19 guacamole-common = 0.7.0 guacamole-common-js = 0.7.0 guacamole-ext = 0.7.0 java jpackage-utils guacamole-javadoc-0.7.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- guacamole-0.7.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: config(guacamole) = 0.7.0-1.fc19 guacamole = 0.7.0-1.fc19 guacamole-javadoc-0.7.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm: guacamole-javadoc = 0.7.0-1.fc19 MD5-sum check ------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/guacamole/guacamole-0.7.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 65bce57269c249423d07fce12692e26f88a8c67f25f77ee854177d406743fbaf CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 65bce57269c249423d07fce12692e26f88a8c67f25f77ee854177d406743fbaf 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 -b 853922 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 *** NOT APPROVED *** Issues and notes are at the top of this comment. Until those are fixed, I may not approve the package. -- 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=CzBHTk5buB&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review