https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1206080 --- Comment #4 from Michael Simacek <msimacek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Why the weird source URL? - The prebuilt RPMS on Copr don't match the ones in SRPM (not a problem, just FYI) - antlr4-4.5/runtime/Java/lib - there's a bundled jar, should be removed in prep - Minor detail - double colon in %jpackage_script classpath. It does nothing, but it's confusing to the people who read the specfile ===== 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". 40 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/msimacek/reviews/1206080-antlr4/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: 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. Note: Test run failed [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 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. Java: [!]: 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: [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in antlr4-runtime , antlr4-maven-plugin , antlr4-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: 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. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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: antlr4-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm antlr4-runtime-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm antlr4-maven-plugin-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm antlr4-javadoc-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm antlr4-4.5-1.fc23.src.rpm antlr4.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary antlr4 antlr4-runtime.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers antlr4-maven-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US parsers -> parser, parses, parers antlr4-maven-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation antlr4.src: W: file-size-mismatch antlr4-maven-plugin-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm = 21000, https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mizdebsk/newpkg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/antlr4-4.5-1.fc23/antlr4-maven-plugin-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm = 21632 antlr4.src: W: file-size-mismatch antlr4-runtime-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm = 320168, https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mizdebsk/newpkg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/antlr4-4.5-1.fc23/antlr4-runtime-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm = 320796 antlr4.src: W: file-size-mismatch antlr4-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm = 558248, https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mizdebsk/newpkg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/antlr4-4.5-1.fc23/antlr4-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm = 558876 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- antlr4-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils antlr4-maven-plugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(org.antlr:antlr4) mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-core) mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-plugin-api) mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-compiler-api) mvn(org.sonatype.plexus:plexus-build-api) antlr4 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(org.antlr:ST4) mvn(org.antlr:antlr-runtime) mvn(org.antlr:antlr4-runtime) antlr4-runtime (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(org.abego.treelayout:org.abego.treelayout.core) Provides -------- antlr4-javadoc: antlr4-javadoc antlr4-maven-plugin: antlr4-maven-plugin mvn(org.antlr:antlr4-maven-plugin) mvn(org.antlr:antlr4-maven-plugin:pom:) antlr4: antlr4 mvn(org.antlr:antlr4) mvn(org.antlr:antlr4:pom:) antlr4-runtime: antlr4-runtime mvn(org.antlr:antlr4-runtime) mvn(org.antlr:antlr4-runtime:pom:) osgi(org.antlr.antlr4-runtime-osgi) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/antlr/antlr4/archive/4.5.tar.gz#/antlr4-4.5.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c1f24b710050565233598f610df9a9ec696f6f7c7cf8b7b727f8093374f52ee7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c1f24b710050565233598f610df9a9ec696f6f7c7cf8b7b727f8093374f52ee7 https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mizdebsk/newpkg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/antlr4-4.5-1.fc23/antlr4-runtime-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 1e9a011717859e24c23e2429496940bb24094a394461d76f9acea7f64b02635c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cdae1fbc2e23ba22a0582c4a8ba310a8c18e997dbe24b9408005185f1d873a8f https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mizdebsk/newpkg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/antlr4-4.5-1.fc23/antlr4-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f48c93928e8d141293c63d31a29d5a117ad54339230b6a6291db887df0e4bd97 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6bfdc127f56010d86729a4e0107795ea3835041f87ab049541d9dc125eeab128 https://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/mizdebsk/newpkg/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/antlr4-4.5-1.fc23/antlr4-maven-plugin-4.5-1.fc23.noarch.rpm : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 78391806168a51d3de808c8548be95a869347f0fdc1e16b9f498f994ec8d7b13 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 330e1896693e2d6d43f649f033eb3a50d4d3ad5d95bca244662afa53b0547039 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1206080 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