https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865890 Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsland@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Gil, Package manually reviewed, also used fedora-review tool. [OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build produces. The output should be posted in the review. Checking: concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru-1.3.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru-javadoc-1.3.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, until, u til concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US LinkedHashMap 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru-javadoc concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, until, u til concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US LinkedHashMap 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. All above can be ignored. [OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines [OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption [OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines [OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines [OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. [OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English [OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible [OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries [OK] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. [13] [OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific situations)[14] [OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. [15] [OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16] [OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content [OK]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [OK]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [OK]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [OK]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [OK]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [OK]: Permissions on files are set properly. [OK]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [OK]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [OK]: Package do not use a name that already exist [OK]: Package is not relocatable. [OK]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [OK]: File names are valid UTF-8. [OK]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [OK]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [OK]: Package installs properly. [OK]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Java: =========== [OK]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [OK]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [OK]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [OK]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [OK]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [OK]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [OK]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Maven: ============ [OK]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [OK]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [OK]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [OK]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms Should =========== [OK]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. http://code.google.com/p/concurrentlinkedhashmap/issues/detail?id=38 [OK]: Package functions as described. [OK]: Latest version is packaged. [OK]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [OK]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [OK]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [OK]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [OK]: Buildroot is not present [OK]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [OK]: Dist tag is present. [OK]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [OK]: SourceX is a working URL. [OK]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Final status: APPROVED. -- 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=ZghAE1VZFa&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review