https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084976 Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd- sdk(eclipse-emf-xsd-sdk), /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd/eclipse/plugins (eclipse-emf-xsd), /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd/eclipse(eclipse-emf- xsd), /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd/eclipse/features(eclipse-emf-xsd), /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd-sdk/eclipse/features(eclipse-emf-xsd-sdk), /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd-sdk/eclipse(eclipse-emf-xsd-sdk), /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd(eclipse-emf-xsd), /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd-sdk/eclipse/plugins(eclipse-emf-xsd-sdk) [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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 Maven: [-]: 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in eclipse- xsd-examples [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. [-]: 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. [-]: 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.) Not applicable as upstream doesn't really have a build system. But work on getting one from this package is ongoing. [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: eclipse-xsd-2.9.2-2.fc20.noarch.rpm eclipse-xsd-sdk-2.9.2-2.fc20.noarch.rpm eclipse-xsd-examples-2.9.2-2.fc20.noarch.rpm eclipse-xsd-2.9.2-2.fc20.src.rpm eclipse-xsd-sdk.noarch: W: no-documentation eclipse-xsd-examples.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Installable -> Install able, Install-able, Uninstallable eclipse-xsd-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint eclipse-xsd-sdk eclipse-xsd eclipse-xsd-examples eclipse-xsd-sdk.noarch: W: no-documentation eclipse-xsd-examples.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Installable -> Install able, Install-able, Uninstallable eclipse-xsd-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Not a problem - there is no suitable documentation for these subpackages and Source checksums ---------------- http://git.eclipse.org/c/xsd/org.eclipse.xsd.git/snapshot/R2_9_2.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c8ad4aa33d21f343b0ec8887ebfefb9d18f751773e3fbf637dacf67b18ba3ce5 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c8ad4aa33d21f343b0ec8887ebfefb9d18f751773e3fbf637dacf67b18ba3ce5 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