https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1071495 Robert Rati <rrati@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #3 from Robert Rati <rrati@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (3 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". [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 [-]: 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. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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. [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 ===== 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Tests are disabled because of missing deps. [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. ===== 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: spark-0.9.0-0.3.fc21.noarch.rpm spark-javadoc-0.9.0-0.3.fc21.noarch.rpm spark-0.9.0-0.3.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint spark spark-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- spark (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools jetty8 jpackage-utils mvn(com.codahale.metrics:metrics-core) mvn(com.codahale.metrics:metrics-ganglia) mvn(com.codahale.metrics:metrics-graphite) mvn(com.codahale.metrics:metrics-json) mvn(com.codahale.metrics:metrics-jvm) mvn(com.freevariable.lancer:lancer) mvn(com.google.code.findbugs:jsr305) mvn(com.google.guava:guava) mvn(com.ning:compress-lzf) mvn(com.thoughtworks.paranamer:paranamer) mvn(com.typesafe.akka:akka-actor_2.10) mvn(com.typesafe.akka:akka-remote_2.10) mvn(commons-daemon:commons-daemon) mvn(io.netty:netty-all) mvn(it.unimi.dsi:fastutil) mvn(log4j:log4j) mvn(net.java.dev.jets3t:jets3t) mvn(org.apache.hadoop:hadoop-client) mvn(org.apache.zookeeper:zookeeper) mvn(org.easymock:easymock) mvn(org.eclipse.jetty.orbit:javax.servlet) mvn(org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-server) mvn(org.jblas:jblas) mvn(org.json4s:json4s-jackson_2.10) mvn(org.ow2.asm:asm) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-log4j12) mvn(org.xerial.snappy:snappy-java) scala spark-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- spark: mvn(org.apache.spark:spark-bagel_2.10) mvn(org.apache.spark:spark-core_2.10) mvn(org.apache.spark:spark-graphx_2.10) mvn(org.apache.spark:spark-mllib_2.10) mvn(org.apache.spark:spark-streaming_2.10) spark spark-javadoc: spark-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- https://raw.github.com/willb/rpm-packaging/v0.9.0/spark-packaging/xmvn-sbt.properties : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5486baac1fc3b1e012471a2e7f11bf17c7d7f811126292419467d55dc43b6b2f CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5486baac1fc3b1e012471a2e7f11bf17c7d7f811126292419467d55dc43b6b2f https://github.com/apache/spark/archive/v0.9.0-incubating.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8541be027cfe27752d90daea08a08a299451a7b7b14f9238fe88585fcabb7100 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 8541be027cfe27752d90daea08a08a299451a7b7b14f9238fe88585fcabb7100 https://raw.github.com/willb/rpm-packaging/v0.9.0/spark-packaging/xmvn-sbt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 2284e4e09febd3d91d1af912c542e8362dc543cb5207730177c255a8baedb84d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 2284e4e09febd3d91d1af912c542e8362dc543cb5207730177c255a8baedb84d Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1071495 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 APPROVED -- 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