https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022551 Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert@xxxxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= See points marked [!] below ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Why is there a BuildRequires on java-devel >= 1:1.7 and a Requires on java >= 1:1.7? Is not Java 1.5 sufficient (i.e. no versioned requires necessary)? Is the full java really necessary, or is java-headless sufficient? [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. However, rpmlint complains about a spelling error: particuar → particular [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [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). [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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the beginning of %install. [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]: 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 Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [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) 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 DO 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [!]: Latest version is packaged. Version 1.50 is available [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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. "There was 1 failure" - specfile written to ignore test failures [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 (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [!]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) Upstream binary jar: compiled Java class data, version 49.0 (Java 1.5) Packaged binary jar: compiled Java class data, version 50.0 (Java 1.6) So not the same build method as upstream. [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: bouncycastle-pkix-1.49-1.fc21.noarch.rpm bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc-1.49-1.fc21.noarch.rpm bouncycastle-pkix-1.49-1.fc21.src.rpm bouncycastle-pkix.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US particuar -> particular, particulate, participant bouncycastle-pkix.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US particuar -> particular, particulate, participant bouncycastle-pkix.src: W: strange-permission bouncycastle-pkix.spec 0600L bouncycastle-pkix.src: E: specfile-error sh: Failed to set JAVACMD 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint bouncycastle-pkix bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc bouncycastle-pkix.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US particuar -> particular, particulate, participant 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- bouncycastle-pkix (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bouncycastle java jpackage-utils bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bouncycastle-pkix jpackage-utils Provides -------- bouncycastle-pkix: bcpkxi bouncycastle-pkix mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on) bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc: bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- http://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bcpkix-jdk15on-149.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8adcc21c2f848e449d6a15daec96adf73174c93015ddf0f4eb8bb6f964500f8a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8adcc21c2f848e449d6a15daec96adf73174c93015ddf0f4eb8bb6f964500f8a http://repo2.maven.org/maven2/org/bouncycastle/bcpkix-jdk15on/1.49/bcpkix-jdk15on-1.49.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 828063a4cc1957a081c9da2f5ff1cf2b14cbe94f1d9623f837e3ea0bcdf6364a CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 828063a4cc1957a081c9da2f5ff1cf2b14cbe94f1d9623f837e3ea0bcdf6364a Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -L bcprov -b 1022551 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG Built with local dependencies: /home/ellert/F/bcprov/bouncycastle-1.49-1.fc21.noarch.rpm -- 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