https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=854239 --- Comment #4 from Michael Simacek <msimacek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- My mistake, I had different version of groovy in my local repo which ended up in mock. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Missing BuildRequires: javapackages-local and aqute-bndlib - Doesn't build with netty3 in rawhide - the jar path is different and the <version> in POM doesn't match - Bundled extra166y - I think this part should be packaged separately ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [?]: 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 24 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/msimacek/reviews/gpars-1.0.0-1.fc19.src/review- gpars/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata [x]: 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. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 20480 bytes in 4 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]: 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]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils [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]: 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: [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 gpars- javadoc [?]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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: [-]: 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: gpars-1.0.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm gpars-javadoc-1.0.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm gpars-1.0.0-1.fc22.src.rpm gpars.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://gpars.codehaus.org/ HTTP Error 404: Unknown page Home gpars-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://gpars.codehaus.org/ HTTP Error 404: Unknown page Home gpars.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://gpars.codehaus.org/ HTTP Error 404: Unknown page Home gpars.src: W: file-size-mismatch gpars-1.0.0.pom = 1770, http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/codehaus/gpars/gpars/1.0.0/gpars-1.0.0.pom = 1780 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint gpars-javadoc gpars gpars-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://gpars.codehaus.org/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found gpars.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://gpars.codehaus.org/ HTTP Error 404: Not Found 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- gpars-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils gpars (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(org.codehaus.jcsp:jcsp) mvn(org.jboss.netty:netty:3) Provides -------- gpars-javadoc: gpars-javadoc gpars: gpars mvn(org.codehaus.gpars:gpars) mvn(org.codehaus.gpars:gpars:pom:) osgi(gpars.org) Source checksums ---------------- Using local file /home/msimacek/reviews/gpars-1.0.0-1.fc19.src/gpars-build.xml as upstream file:///home/msimacek/reviews/gpars-1.0.0-1.fc19.src/gpars-build.xml : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fdc1d1766fa3d88ac05e588bca2c7d71c3a87ab1c40d308969dad5fbcfee8920 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fdc1d1766fa3d88ac05e588bca2c7d71c3a87ab1c40d308969dad5fbcfee8920 Using local file /home/msimacek/reviews/gpars-1.0.0-1.fc19.src/gpars-build.properties as upstream file:///home/msimacek/reviews/gpars-1.0.0-1.fc19.src/gpars-build.properties : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 67129c6176a74a5ab659e55e9eb7f8d58de5c5d6759450100c5745857f0933e6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 67129c6176a74a5ab659e55e9eb7f8d58de5c5d6759450100c5745857f0933e6 https://github.com/GPars/GPars/archive/release-1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : fdc23254dd7579cb1776b647ae9f17eceb27c7248f4e9a26bb3d8787655e05b4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : fdc23254dd7579cb1776b647ae9f17eceb27c7248f4e9a26bb3d8787655e05b4 http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/codehaus/gpars/gpars/1.0.0/gpars-1.0.0.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 8236507d30914efbb39390c1703f98077818cf68fd30b9011a918df12c147767 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : da836beccd59906bbef8ba2fee7a5e22c5d40468825947a05a174ca375f09dfa diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n gpars 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