https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1029142 --- Comment #8 from Timothy St. Clair <tstclair@xxxxxxxxxx> --- In Order: >[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)", "Unknown or generated". 21 files have unknown license. > Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/1029142-amplab- > tachyon/licensecheck.txt > REVIEW NOTE: 21 files w/ unknown license are generated by the Thrift Compiler Expected. Thrift re-generation is done due to upstream version mismatch. >[X]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/systemd/system, > /usr/lib/systemd, /var/lib/tachyon, /etc/tmpfiles.d > REVIEW NOTE: AFAIK no dep is required on systemd itself, which provides these >dirs. I don't exactly know what you are trying to say here. I adhered to the policies outlined here: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Systemd >[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). > REVIEW COMMENT: %name and ${name} used, pick one All .spec elements use either %{name} or reference variable %{shortname}. This is done b/c of namespace collision with existing packages. >[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in amplab- > tachyon-javadoc Not applicable in this space. Typically compat packages are explicitly specified in the java space. > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. > REVIEW COMMENT: Not present, please justify This is typically not done in java packaging because (%mvn_build) by default runs the unit tests for a java package. e.g. It's not standard practice in the java space for Fedora 19 & >. (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review