https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=973084 --- Comment #11 from Björn Esser <bjoern.esser@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package has some issues. I'll collect things found by others in previous comments and those I found in my report. build.log shows nothing to worry. ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Maven packages should use new style packaging Note: If possible update your package to latest guidelines See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven ---> If you're really in the need having/using this in F18 you can keep "old-style" until F18 goes EOL, but you should add some comment about changing it to new style after F18 is EOL'ed. Otherwise you should change it to new-style immediatly and only build your package for F19+, only. - All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Note: These BR are not needed: unzip See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 ---> you can safely remove this BR, it's automaticly avail on all build-envs - 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 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java ---> there's no need for BR: java-devel jpackage-utils, they are installed in build-env by dependency No need for conditional on BRs, too. In this case it would be needed for Fedora <= 17, only. maven-local is avail on F18+ - Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the buildsystem See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java ---> please remove Requires: jpackage-utils, it's picked-up by autorequires - rpmlint complains (as seen below, too): htmlcleaner.spec:7: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 7, tab: line 1) ---> use tabs OR spaces for spacing columns, don't mix. see: comment #9 htmlcleaner.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C HtmlCleaner ---> proposed solution: `Summary: HTML parser written in Java` should be fine htmlcleaner.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C HtmlCleaner is open-source HTML parser written in Java. ... ---> please split lines @80 char max. htmlcleaner.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/htmlcleaner-2.2.1/licence.txt ---> this can be easiely fixed: sed -i -e 's!\r!!g' licence.txt see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding The rest of complains is just repeated from the above. 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 5 warnings. ===== 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 htmlcleaner-javadoc ---> false positive: docs-pkgs should not require the "binary" app. btw. noarch-pkgs mustn't have %{?_isa}-macro on requires. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> issues are found [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bjoern.esser/fedora/review/973084-htmlcleaner/licensecheck.txt ---> License-Tag should be: "BSD with advertising", since license is 3-clause-BSD in fact. [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. ---> javadoc-pkg should include license-file, too. This is OK according to guidelines, see: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Duplicate_Files https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing [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. [-]: 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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. ---> Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils There's no need for explict requires on jpackage-utils, it is added by autorequires if neccesary [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 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Java: [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [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 [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: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). ---> javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. ---> instead of using a patch here, you should use %pom_* macros like proposed in comment #8 [-]: 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. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: htmlcleaner-2.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm htmlcleaner-javadoc-2.2.1-1.fc20.noarch.rpm htmlcleaner.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C HtmlCleaner htmlcleaner.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C HtmlCleaner is open-source HTML parser written in Java. HTML found on Web is usually dirty, ill-formed and unsuitable for further processing. For any serious consumption of such documents, it is necessary to first clean up the mess and bring the order to tags, attributes and ordinary text. For the given HTML document, HtmlCleaner reorders individual elements and produces well-formed XML. By default, it follows similar rules that the most of web browsers use in order to create Document Object Model. However, user may provide custom tag and rule set for tag filtering and balancing. htmlcleaner.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/htmlcleaner-2.2.1/licence.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint htmlcleaner htmlcleaner-javadoc htmlcleaner.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C HtmlCleaner htmlcleaner.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C HtmlCleaner is open-source HTML parser written in Java. HTML found on Web is usually dirty, ill-formed and unsuitable for further processing. For any serious consumption of such documents, it is necessary to first clean up the mess and bring the order to tags, attributes and ordinary text. For the given HTML document, HtmlCleaner reorders individual elements and produces well-formed XML. By default, it follows similar rules that the most of web browsers use in order to create Document Object Model. However, user may provide custom tag and rule set for tag filtering and balancing. htmlcleaner.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/htmlcleaner-2.2.1/licence.txt 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- htmlcleaner (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils htmlcleaner-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- htmlcleaner: htmlcleaner mvn(net.sourceforge.htmlcleaner:htmlcleaner) htmlcleaner-javadoc: htmlcleaner-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/htmlcleaner/htmlcleaner/htmlcleaner v2.2.1/htmlcleaner-2.2.1-src.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d1f045efff57d266c94e6b87e6685c14d7fbec3aac648f6020cc69812fe0be31 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d1f045efff57d266c94e6b87e6685c14d7fbec3aac648f6020cc69812fe0be31 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 973084 ##### please fix the issues, update changelog/revision in spec and I'll take another look on this. If you want to convince someone to sponsor you, I recommend you should follow the proposals from the wiki [1] (esp. in doing `informal reviews`) and posting links to them here. [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/How_to_get_sponsored_into_the_packager_group#Convincing_someone_to_sponsor_you -- 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=efpZ9Jazag&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review