https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127894 gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |puntogil@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> --- 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 94 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1127894-jsap/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-metadata [-]: 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. Requires: javapackages-tools should be removed [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 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 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: [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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jsap- javadoc , jsap-doc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [?]: 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. [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: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) IGNORE Not relevant [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: jsap-2.1-5.3.fc22.noarch.rpm jsap-javadoc-2.1-5.3.fc22.noarch.rpm jsap-doc-2.1-5.3.fc22.noarch.rpm jsap-2.1-5.3.fc22.src.rpm jsap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awt -> aw, at, wt jsap.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awt -> aw, at, wt jsap.src: E: specfile-error /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Could not find snip Java extension for this JVM jsap.src: E: specfile-error /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Could not find rundoc Java extension for this JVM jsap.src: E: specfile-error /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Some specified jars were not found jsap.src: E: specfile-error mvn_install: invalid option -- 'J' jsap.src: E: specfile-error error: Unknown option J in mvn_install() 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 5 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jsap-doc jsap jsap-javadoc jsap.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awt -> aw, at, wt 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/gil/1127894-jsap/srpm/jsap.spec 2014-08-20 22:16:09.019199939 +0200 +++ /home/gil/1127894-jsap/srpm-unpacked/jsap.spec 2014-08-20 20:55:56.000000000 +0200 @@ -89,5 +89,5 @@ %patch1 -cp %{SOURCE1} %{name}.pom +cp %{SOURCE1} %{name}.pom %build @@ -108,5 +108,4 @@ %mvn_install -J javadoc/ - %files -f .mfiles %doc LICENSE.TXT CHANGELOG.TXT Requires -------- jsap-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jsap (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools jpackage-utils jsap-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- jsap-doc: jsap-doc jsap: jsap mvn(com.martiansoftware:jsap) mvn(com.martiansoftware:jsap:pom:) jsap-javadoc: jsap-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- http://prdownloads.sourceforge.net/jsap/JSAP-2.1-src.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5146bf75cba18fdf9299462a4127e95919c884494aaf3ed023cb2950217a0862 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5146bf75cba18fdf9299462a4127e95919c884494aaf3ed023cb2950217a0862 http://central.maven.org/maven2/com/martiansoftware/jsap/2.1/jsap-2.1.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 9acf56a8579c05bedd819d99232363e2bf327e8f73c67598dbd9885a845a3c69 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9acf56a8579c05bedd819d99232363e2bf327e8f73c67598dbd9885a845a3c69 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1127894 --plugins Java -m fedora-rawhide-i386 -L /home/gil/deps Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 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/gil/deps/rundoc-0.11-3.fc22.noarch.rpm /home/gil/deps/snip-0.11-3.fc22.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