https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=847109 Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? | Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package is fine. Just one non-blocker, not really needed, but by common guidelines mandatory, BuildRequires, as described in review-result. ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in jets3t-app See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage ---> false positive: it's in spec, actually - 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. Note: Cannot find license.txt in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ---> false positive: %doc LICENSE-2.0.txt is present - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java ---> please add BuildRequires: jpackage-utils in SCM, then. Requires are correct, though. ===== 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jets3t-app , jets3t-javadoc ---> false psitive: all build pkgs are noarch [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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)", "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/847109-jets3t/licensecheck.txt ---> false positive: everything is fine here. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [-]: 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. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 92160 bytes in 6 files. [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]: %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. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: No %config files under /usr. [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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Java: [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 Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct or update to latest guidelines [-]: 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: [-]: 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]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments ---> .hg (mercurial-data) subdir in tarball could possibly be stripped as well, since it occupies approx. 25 MB not needed data. [-]: 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. [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 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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: jets3t-0.9.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm jets3t-app-0.9.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm jets3t-javadoc-0.9.0-1.fc20.noarch.rpm jets3t-app.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cockpitlite -> cockpit lite, cockpit-lite, cockpit jets3t-app.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uploader -> uploaded, up loader, up-loader jets3t-app.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US servlet -> settler jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-gui-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/gui.jar jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-synchronize-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/synchronize.jar jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-cockpitlite-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/cockpitlite.jar jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-cockpit-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/cockpit.jar jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-uploader-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/uploader.jar jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/jets3t.jar 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jets3t-app jets3t-javadoc jets3t jets3t-app.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US cockpitlite -> cockpit lite, cockpit-lite, cockpit jets3t-app.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US uploader -> uploaded, up loader, up-loader jets3t-app.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US servlet -> settler jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-gui-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/gui.jar jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-synchronize-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/synchronize.jar jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-cockpitlite-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/cockpitlite.jar jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-cockpit-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/cockpit.jar jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-uploader-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/uploader.jar jets3t-app.noarch: W: dangling-relative-symlink /usr/share/jets3t/jars/jets3t-0.9.0.jar ../../java/jets3t/jets3t.jar 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' ---> symlinks are linked correctly. they are properly resolved by Requires when pkg is installed. Requires -------- jets3t-app (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh BareBonesBrowserLaunch apache-commons-codec apache-commons-logging base64 bouncycastle config(jets3t-app) httpcomponents-client httpcomponents-core java-xmlbuilder jets3t jpackage-utils log4j jets3t-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils jets3t (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): apache-commons-codec apache-commons-logging base64 httpcomponents-client httpcomponents-core java java-xmlbuilder jpackage-utils Provides -------- jets3t-app: config(jets3t-app) jets3t-app jets3t-javadoc: jets3t-javadoc jets3t: jets3t mvn(net.java.dev.jets3t:cockpit) mvn(net.java.dev.jets3t:jets3t) mvn(net.java.dev.jets3t:jets3t-gui) mvn(net.java.dev.jets3t:synchronize) Source checksums ---------------- http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/net/java/dev/jets3t/jets3t-gui/0.9.0/jets3t-gui-0.9.0.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9135aba1416277d58e1608db1a9eaacc2c16e8ad9ee5d923a2d1f6c47c533e25 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9135aba1416277d58e1608db1a9eaacc2c16e8ad9ee5d923a2d1f6c47c533e25 http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/net/java/dev/jets3t/cockpit/0.9.0/cockpit-0.9.0.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0e2beab222b1490e8f1ca0ec77a85a0272b108e47e7578686e3cafde626d2e74 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0e2beab222b1490e8f1ca0ec77a85a0272b108e47e7578686e3cafde626d2e74 http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/net/java/dev/jets3t/jets3t/0.9.0/jets3t-0.9.0.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9cf20dacca98ab339990940078f8d8b6f32d344b335a1fb7d0878077119b159a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9cf20dacca98ab339990940078f8d8b6f32d344b335a1fb7d0878077119b159a http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/net/java/dev/jets3t/synchronize/0.9.0/synchronize-0.9.0.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 436d6e1464ef985f414ba61ad7819eb81a91d0bc596a6f2cb84cf93d453c0eef CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 436d6e1464ef985f414ba61ad7819eb81a91d0bc596a6f2cb84cf93d453c0eef 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 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 847109 ##### This on is 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=4oQiJgZnP7&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review