https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1187713 --- Comment #16 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- The patch to load libraries is wrong. It makes the jar file architecture dependent, but it should not be. Just try loading from /usr/lib64, and then from /usr/lib. This will work on both 64 and 32 bit archs. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1187713-netty-tcnative/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. No license is installed with -javadocs. [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/netty-tcnative, /usr/lib64 /netty-tcnative, /usr/lib/java/netty-tcnative [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms/netty- tcnative, /usr/lib64/netty-tcnative, /usr/lib/java/netty-tcnative Those should be added. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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 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. Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Test run failed [x]: 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 [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]: 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). See comments below [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in netty- tcnative-javadoc Not needed. [?]: 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. [?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. I don't think it would actually build, because of the binary conflict. [-]: %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]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: netty-tcnative subpackage is not noarch. [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: netty-tcnative-1.1.30-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm netty-tcnative-javadoc-1.1.30-0.fc22.x86_64.rpm netty-tcnative-1.1.30-0.fc22.src.rpm netty-tcnative.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Netty-tcnative netty-tcnative.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mavenization -> magnetization, humanization, maximization netty-tcnative.x86_64: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.30.Fork2.0 ['1.1.30-0.fc22', '1.1.30-0'] ??? netty-tcnative.x86_64: W: no-documentation netty-tcnative.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Netty-tcnative rpmlint is right here. The summary is meaningless. netty-tcnative.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US mavenization -> magnetization, humanization, maximization netty-tcnative.src: W: strange-permission netty-tcnative-1.1.30.Fork2.tar.gz 0640L netty-tcnative.src:68: W: macro-in-comment %{_jnidir} netty-tcnative.src:68: W: macro-in-comment %{name} netty-tcnative.src:68: W: macro-in-comment %{name} Please fix those. netty-tcnative.src:62: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 62) And this. netty-tcnative.src: W: patch-not-applied Patch1: fixLibNames.patch.in 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 12 warnings. OK. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- netty-tcnative (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): apr java-headless jpackage-utils libapr-1.so.0()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10()(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1)(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(OPENSSL_1.0.1_EC)(64bit) libcrypto.so.10(libcrypto.so.10)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) libssl.so.10()(64bit) libssl.so.10(libssl.so.10)(64bit) openssl This also seems unecessary. IIUC, only ssl libs are required, and that dependency is provided automatically. rtld(GNU_HASH) netty-tcnative-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils This seems unnecessary. Provides -------- netty-tcnative: libnetty-tcnative-1.1.30.Fork2.so()(64bit) mvn(io.netty:netty-tcnative) mvn(io.netty:netty-tcnative:pom:) netty-tcnative netty-tcnative(x86-64) osgi(io.netty.tcnative) netty-tcnative-javadoc: netty-tcnative-javadoc netty-tcnative-javadoc(x86-64) Unversioned so-files -------------------- netty-tcnative: /usr/lib64/netty-tcnative/libnetty-tcnative.so OK. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/netty/netty-tcnative/archive/netty-tcnative-1.1.30.Fork2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ef30d9b3c24704c960b3db59f50b8df01db0eec097e1552b2b9d8e558b9bfd6b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ef30d9b3c24704c960b3db59f50b8df01db0eec097e1552b2b9d8e558b9bfd6b Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1187713 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Python, SugarActivity, fonts, Haskell, Ocaml, Perl, 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