https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1022551 --- Comment #8 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License tag says "BSD". The license text in LICENSE.html is "MIT" - same as the other bouncycastle* packages. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. License.html included both in main and javadoc packages. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [!]: ... though there is a missing newline at the end of the specfile [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. * This package replaces the discontinued bouncycastle-tsp package (all classes from the old bctsp are now in bcpkix) and should Obsolete it. I am not sure whether a Provides is helpful or not. * This package replaces parts of older versions of the bouncycastle-mail package (some classes moved from bcmail to bcpkix) - should upgrading bouncycastle-mail 1.46 result in both bouncycastle-mail 1.50 and bouncycastle-pkix 1.50 being installed? (This might require that both packages Obsoletes bouncycastle-mail < 1.47), or should this just be ignored? [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. Package requires java, would java-headless be enough? Package requires both jpackage-utils and javapackages-tools. According to the guidelines java packages should require jpackage-utils, not javapackages-tools. jpackage-utils currently is provided by javapackages-tools, so currently it is the same thing, but this might change in the future. If the jpackage-utils provides moves to a different package or becomes a separate package the requires on javapackages-tools will become a dependency bloat. Or is there a runtime dependency on the non-jpackage-utils part of javapackages-tools? [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: 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. Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 3 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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [!]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. Package BuildRequires both java-devel and ant. Is there a reason for this? Guidelines says java packages should BuidRequire only one of maven-local, ant or java-devel. [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]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). See above regarding jpackage-utils/javapackages-tools [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. The javadoc package has its own copy of the LICENSE.html file, so no dependency on the main package is necessary. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. Tests are rune using junit during %build. All run test succeed. Tests known to fail are disabled with comments in the specfile. [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]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [!]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) Like upstream the installed jars are built using java 1.5, so this is fine. Of the various bouncycastle* packages in Fedora, bouncycastle and bouncycastle-mail build using javac, while bouncycastle-pg and this version of the bouncycastle-pkix build using ant with a build.xml not included in the upstream source. I am in no position to say Which of these methods that is closest to the "upstream build method". For me it would make sense if all the bouncycastle* packages were built the same way - which is currently not the case. Since the already existing packages do not agree, I can not say "please do as the others" - but you (and this is a collective you that includes the maintainers and co-maintainers of all the bouncycastle* packages) might consider harmonizing this among the packages. [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [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: bouncycastle-pkix-1.50-1.fc21.noarch.rpm bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc-1.50-1.fc21.noarch.rpm bouncycastle-pkix-1.50-1.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint bouncycastle-pkix bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- bouncycastle-pkix (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java javapackages-tools jpackage-utils mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcprov-jdk15on) bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- bouncycastle-pkix: bouncycastle-pkix mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on) osgi(bcpkix) bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc: bouncycastle-pkix-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- http://www.bouncycastle.org/download/bcpkix-jdk15on-150.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 0be5bb948ec481b3d1f30ee80ef593b298b3782697f9eeee5c74cf270689b520 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 0be5bb948ec481b3d1f30ee80ef593b298b3782697f9eeee5c74cf270689b520 http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/bouncycastle/bcpkix-jdk15on/1.50/bcpkix-jdk15on-1.50.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e4058a215a83e936a2889cdce042078247130cc93fc37d1f4c13c648910d90b1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e4058a215a83e936a2889cdce042078247130cc93fc37d1f4c13c648910d90b1 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1022551 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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 -- 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