https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=965848 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= The following lines: %if 0%{?rhel} >= 6 BuildArch: noarch %endif in the %package section for the javadoc subpackage are confusing. The source package is noarch, which means that all binary packages built from it are noarch. Aditional noarch tags in %package sections are pointless. Such tags only make sense if the source packages in not noarch. ===== 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 [x]: 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. [-]: 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. "Requires: java" is missing. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 2 files. ( Javadoc is separate anyway. ) [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. Note: No rpmlint messages. Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [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: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant You might want to consider adding a pom file and generating a maven dependency map to the installed package so that it can be used a buildrequires for other packages that build using maven, even if this package itself is built using ant. (This is however not mandatory according to the guidelines, since upstream does not provide a pom file. You might get a feature request filed against the package later asking for it - I have gotten such requests for java packages I packaged before.) There are such users, as can be seen e.g. in https://github.com/italiangrid/cream-parent/blob/master/pom.xml: <dependency> <groupId>org.glite.lb</groupId> <artifactId>jobid-api-java</artifactId> <version>1.3.4</version> <scope>compile</scope> </dependency> [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make. [-]: 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). The main package is missing "Requires: java". See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#ant_2 [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Version 1.3.6 is available: http://scientific.zcu.cz/emi/emi.jobid.api-java/glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.6.tar.gz [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. It is a no-op though: "make: Nothing to be done for 'check'." But that's OK - it might start doing things in future releases. [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.) ant is used - as by upstream [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.5-1.fc20.noarch.rpm glite-jobid-api-java-javadoc-1.3.5-1.fc20.noarch.rpm 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint glite-jobid-api-java glite-jobid-api-java-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- glite-jobid-api-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jakarta-commons-codec jpackage-utils glite-jobid-api-java-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glite-jobid-api-java jpackage-utils Provides -------- glite-jobid-api-java: glite-jobid-api-java glite-jobid-api-java-javadoc: glite-jobid-api-java-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- http://scientific.zcu.cz/emi/emi.jobid.api-java/glite-jobid-api-java-1.3.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0b18388b5b0c614b64fed05042c28ae72e599066735fdb6ac9dda888d1b8e2a0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0b18388b5b0c614b64fed05042c28ae72e599066735fdb6ac9dda888d1b8e2a0 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 965848 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -- 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=NEpTNrGRDv&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review