https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202470 Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Hello Gil, I don't have permission to submit your package further but I made a review anyway. For most part this looks good but I have a few items and questions and one part I did not understand: - there are files with multiple licenses, this is documented in comments of the spec file but I'm not sure if it is correct to document this in comments ; on the other hand I don't know the correct way in this case. The actual License: part in spec looks ok to me, according to https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing. - In section "Maven" there is a requirement stating [?]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant and now I wasn't sure if this is about building the package itself (no maven nor ant is used in process, it seems) or about usage of the installed pom file (there seems to be a pom-file). I did not try using the pom file with ant so this is a question mark to me. - %check section is missing, comments in spec indicate that this is on purpose. - Source0: points to github but there seems to be nothing in given URL? + there were no rpmlint messages, contrary to what is indicated below. Please find full report below, -- Antti ===== 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. [?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Public domain", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/review-1202470/1202470-validator- htmlparser/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. Question: is there specific format for this ; now the breakdown is in comments, I think this is ok..? [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. [x]: 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. [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 1 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: No rpmlint messages. [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. [!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: can not verify as the github-URL given in Source0: points to 404 page [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]: 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: [?]: 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: [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 validator- htmlparser-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. Note: kind of, as Source0: points to 404. URL: in spec in turn points to proper web page and according to that this release (1.4) is the latest. [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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. Note: this is documented in spec: tests are disabled on purpose. [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.) Note: a shell script [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: validator-htmlparser-1.4-1.fc21.noarch.rpm validator-htmlparser-javadoc-1.4-1.fc21.noarch.rpm validator-htmlparser-1.4-1.fc21.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- validator-htmlparser-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils validator-htmlparser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(com.google.code.javaparser:javaparser) mvn(com.ibm.icu:icu4j) mvn(net.sourceforge.jchardet:jchardet) mvn(xom:xom) Provides -------- validator-htmlparser-javadoc: validator-htmlparser-javadoc validator-htmlparser: mvn(nu.validator.htmlparser:htmlparser) mvn(nu.validator.htmlparser:htmlparser:pom:) mvn(nu.validator.htmlparser:translator) mvn(nu.validator.htmlparser:translator:pom:) osgi(nu.validator.htmlparser) validator-htmlparser -- 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