https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1087605 --- Comment #2 from David King <amigadave@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- It seems like there are just a few minor dependency issues to fix. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java I do not see this mentioned in the the Java packaging guidelines, just that the Requires for jpackage-utils should be manual or generated. Would be good to quiet the warning, if the generated dependency works. - Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the buildsystem See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java Going along with the last item, the warning seems to make sense, even though I cannot see this explicitly mentioned in the guidelines. I guess that you do not need the java-devel dependency, as this is a Maven package (rpmlint complains about it). ===== 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)", "Unknown or generated". 36 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/david/checkout/rpms/1087605-balloontip/licensecheck.txt [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. [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 10240 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]: 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]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in balloontip- javadoc This is fine, as according to https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/#_javadoc_packages such a dependency is unnecessary. [ ]: 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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [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: balloontip-1.2.4.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm balloontip-parent-1.2.4.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm balloontip-examples-1.2.4.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm balloontip-javadoc-1.2.4.1-1.fc21.noarch.rpm balloontip-1.2.4.1-1.fc21.src.rpm balloontip.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/balloontip/README.txt balloontip-parent.noarch: E: devel-dependency java-devel balloontip-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation balloontip-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation balloontip.src: W: invalid-url Source0: https://java.net/projects/balloontip/downloads/download/balloontip_1.2.4.1.zip HTTP Error 404: Not Found 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint balloontip balloontip-javadoc balloontip-parent bal loontip-examples balloontip.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/balloontip/README.txt balloontip-parent.noarch: E: devel-dependency java-devel balloontip-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation balloontip-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- balloontip (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils balloontip-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils balloontip-parent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): balloontip java-devel jpackage-utils mvn(net.java:jvnet-parent) mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-assembly-plugin) balloontip-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): balloontip java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(net.java.balloontip:balloontip) Provides -------- balloontip: balloontip mvn(net.java.balloontip:balloontip) balloontip-javadoc: balloontip-javadoc balloontip-parent: balloontip-parent mvn(net.java.balloontip:balloontip-parent) mvn(net.java.balloontip:balloontip-parent:pom:) balloontip-examples: balloontip-examples mvn(net.java.balloontip:balloontip-examples) Source checksums ---------------- https://java.net/projects/balloontip/downloads/download/balloontip_1.2.4.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5689702a0a7e822330ac4f2bb5fc9170954c5ff8d8298649c29d6b598c864490 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5689702a0a7e822330ac4f2bb5fc9170954c5ff8d8298649c29d6b598c864490 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1087605 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