https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=882477 Michal Srb <msrb@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Michal Srb <msrb@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable ===== 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 contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [-]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [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 according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [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]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package do not use a name that already exist [x]: Package is not relocatable. [x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Java: [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [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]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: springframework-security-3.1.4-1.fc20.noarch.rpm springframework-security-javadoc-3.1.4-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint springframework-security springframework-security-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- springframework-security (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): aopalliance apache-commons-logging apacheds-core apacheds-protocols apacheds-server apacheds-shared aspectjweaver cas-client ehcache-core geronimo-annotation google-guice groovy httpcomponents-client java jpackage-utils ldapjdk openid4java slf4j spring-ldap springframework springframework-aop springframework-beans springframework-context springframework-expression springframework-jdbc springframework-tx springframework-web tomcat-jsp-2.2-api tomcat-servlet-3.0-api springframework-security-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- springframework-security: mvn(org.springframework.security:spring-security-acl) mvn(org.springframework.security:spring-security-cas) mvn(org.springframework.security:spring-security-config) mvn(org.springframework.security:spring-security-core) mvn(org.springframework.security:spring-security-crypto) mvn(org.springframework.security:spring-security-ldap) mvn(org.springframework.security:spring-security-openid) mvn(org.springframework.security:spring-security-remoting) mvn(org.springframework.security:spring-security-taglibs) mvn(org.springframework.security:spring-security-web) osgi(org.springframework.security.acls) osgi(org.springframework.security.cas) osgi(org.springframework.security.config) osgi(org.springframework.security.core) osgi(org.springframework.security.crypto) osgi(org.springframework.security.ldap) osgi(org.springframework.security.openid) osgi(org.springframework.security.remoting) osgi(org.springframework.security.taglibs) osgi(org.springframework.security.web) springframework-security springframework-security-javadoc: springframework-security-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/security/spring-security-web/3.1.4.RELEASE/spring-security-web-3.1.4.RELEASE.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 30c8b7d2f1aea024be3f5900036117e12d3a4f7839602e4f0e9d8380628df35e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 30c8b7d2f1aea024be3f5900036117e12d3a4f7839602e4f0e9d8380628df35e http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/security/spring-security-cas/3.1.4.RELEASE/spring-security-cas-3.1.4.RELEASE.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cf5d17542786876217ae40357c08ed6e7a67a29088fa71669d33e34ab2518ba6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cf5d17542786876217ae40357c08ed6e7a67a29088fa71669d33e34ab2518ba6 http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/security/spring-security-config/3.1.4.RELEASE/spring-security-config-3.1.4.RELEASE.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 697c8a497b9109a145d6a4eecf4d2c6b635c6507ff3f9bf180ae68abdf7af236 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 697c8a497b9109a145d6a4eecf4d2c6b635c6507ff3f9bf180ae68abdf7af236 https://github.com/SpringSource/spring-security/archive/3.1.4.RELEASE.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : aaf547afc03d185ad47283556a69ba4438940c0eff3a3d473d8d26214c832224 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : aaf547afc03d185ad47283556a69ba4438940c0eff3a3d473d8d26214c832224 http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/security/spring-security-acl/3.1.4.RELEASE/spring-security-acl-3.1.4.RELEASE.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 93a2b9aedb29aca621c92fe49d880e1ff8666dc3da249c44b3c742e0370bc702 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 93a2b9aedb29aca621c92fe49d880e1ff8666dc3da249c44b3c742e0370bc702 http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/security/spring-security-ldap/3.1.4.RELEASE/spring-security-ldap-3.1.4.RELEASE.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 7b4898a089c519183640142eccfadb82aabc4766dc38ab6ba539f1627c50de1b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 7b4898a089c519183640142eccfadb82aabc4766dc38ab6ba539f1627c50de1b http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/security/spring-security-openid/3.1.4.RELEASE/spring-security-openid-3.1.4.RELEASE.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0a17634d7cf22d2af6c8f2937ab5c6f7fc2f6e0fe6d071a25df918ac75cf10bd CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0a17634d7cf22d2af6c8f2937ab5c6f7fc2f6e0fe6d071a25df918ac75cf10bd http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/security/spring-security-core/3.1.4.RELEASE/spring-security-core-3.1.4.RELEASE.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b9a2b824d66700eec6fe2e8156243690fcc585aeb72d30be9d2113c09471dae8 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b9a2b824d66700eec6fe2e8156243690fcc585aeb72d30be9d2113c09471dae8 http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/security/spring-security-crypto/3.1.4.RELEASE/spring-security-crypto-3.1.4.RELEASE.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 962c5350b6240d8404e6fc82cadc4d2d470eab62f178202377c86966c9e355cb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 962c5350b6240d8404e6fc82cadc4d2d470eab62f178202377c86966c9e355cb http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/security/spring-security-remoting/3.1.4.RELEASE/spring-security-remoting-3.1.4.RELEASE.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9b040cc46ccf8f8b16b877bafab7264dfbdd945083be4dd8ec3bc5480d380a05 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9b040cc46ccf8f8b16b877bafab7264dfbdd945083be4dd8ec3bc5480d380a05 http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/springframework/security/spring-security-taglibs/3.1.4.RELEASE/spring-security-taglibs-3.1.4.RELEASE.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3105647b43ef5f1f8c2dd2103b19c188884d5109f26e552fc82ee98aace947be CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3105647b43ef5f1f8c2dd2103b19c188884d5109f26e552fc82ee98aace947be Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 882477 Issues: - missing R/BR: springframework-context-support The package won't build without this in rawhide. - license tag is incorrect Public Domain: crypto/src/main/java/org/springframework/security/crypto/codec/Base64.java ISC: crypto/src/main/java/org/springframework/security/crypto/bcrypt/BCrypt.java crypto/src/test/java/org/springframework/security/crypto/bcrypt/BCryptTests.java Please fix these issues before importing spec to the repository. APPROVED PS: I would like to help with maintaining of this package, could you please make me a co-maintainer? Thanks -- 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=AR55ruwEfA&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review