Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847160 --- Comment #17 from Juan Hernández <juan.hernandez@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: Output of rpmlint of the source package: eclipse-m2e-core.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, ml, x ml eclipse-m2e-core.src: W: invalid-url Source0: http://git.eclipse.org/c/m2e/m2e-core.git/snapshot/1.2.0.20120903-1050.tar.bz2 HTTP Error 404: Not found 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. The spelling warning is acceptable. It looks like the URL has changed and is this one now: http://git.eclipse.org/c/m2e/m2e-core.git/snapshot/m2e-core-releases/1.2/1.2.0.20120903-1050.tar.bz2 Output of rpmlint of the binary packages: rpmlint eclipse-m2e-core-1.2.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm eclipse-m2e-core-javadoc-1.2.0-1.fc19.noarch.rpm eclipse-m2e-core.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency cglib eclipse-m2e-core.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US xml -> XML, ml, x ml eclipse-m2e-core-javadoc.noarch: E: script-without-shebang /usr/share/javadoc/eclipse-m2e-core/javadoc.sh 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 73 warnings. (I ommited many warnings about dangling symlinks caused by missing Java packages in the environment where I ran rpmlint) The error about the explicit lib dependency on cglib is a false positive, as cglib is not a library but a regular Java package. The spelling warning is acceptable. The error related to the javadoc.sh script can be fixed excluding that file from the package. [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. Built in koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4894325 [x] Buildroot definition is not present [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: [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] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Checked using a recursive diff of the sources in the package and the sources downloaded from the source URL. [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x] File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with good reason [x] Permissions on files are set properly. [x] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [-] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [-] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [!] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils [x] Package uses %global not %define [-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [!] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building The following .jar files need to be removed before building: org.eclipse.m2e.launching/org.eclipse.m2e.cliresolver30.jar org.eclipse.m2e.launching/org.eclipse.m2e.cliresolver.jar org.eclipse.m2e.tests.common/jars/jetty-util-6.1.22.jar org.eclipse.m2e.tests.common/jars/jetty-6.1.22.jar org.eclipse.m2e.tests.common/jars/servlet-api-2.5-20081211.jar [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) Jar files are installed not installed to %{_javadir}, but to the Eclipse plugins directory and this is expected and acceptable. [!] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [!] pom files has correct add_maven_depmap Not sure if this is a hard requirement for Eclipse releated packages. === Maven === [-] Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms [-] If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a comment [-] If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why it's needed in a comment [x] Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x] Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro === Other suggestions === [x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4894325 === Issues === 1. Apparently the URL of the source has changed, please review and fix it if needed. 2. Don't include the javadoc.sh script in the package. 3. Add the jpackage-utils requirement to the javadoc package. 4. Remove the .jar files included in the tarball before building. 5. Install the POM files (I am not sure this is mandatory for Eclipse related packages). === Final Notes === Address the issues above and I will review again. Thanks for your work Gerard! [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 [6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames -- 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=QvKsZZtSIm&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review