https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230874 --- Comment #4 from Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Not all issues apply any longer. Specifically the comments related to Source0 and License. Here is what I found. Please let me know if you have questions. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [!]: URL should be fixed to: http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-maven-scr-plugin.html [!]: Tarball in SRPM suggests gzipped, but is actually xz compressed. Please fix the file extension. [!]: Description in SRPM says "Apache Felix' Service Component Runtime" which differs from spec. [!]: BuildRequires: mvn(org.apache.felix:org.apache.felix.scr.generator) = 1.12.0 Is this exact version requirement needed? It whould be better to drop the version requirement or use >= if a minimal version is required. [!]: Why is this %mvn_file there? Is it needed? [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [-]: 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 %license. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Use correct license line. Pick "ASL 2.0". See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main?rd=Licensing#Software_License_List [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [!]: Changelog in prescribed format. Fix changelog so that it includes V-R (Version-Release). Example: %changelog * Mon May 25 2015 Jie Kang <jkang@xxxxxxxxxx> - 1.21.0-1 - Initial package [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]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [x]: Package is not relocatable. [!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. The comment for producing the sources should use a specific revision so as to be able to reproduce creating the source tarball with a matching md5sum. Please use svn export over checkout. Tarball contains .svn directories. [x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build [!]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require javapackages-tools. It is pulled in by maven-local. Please only keep the maven-local BR and drop the javapackages-tools BR. [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils It does have it, but is auto-generated. OK. [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) 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 .mfiles file list 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. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: 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 (maven) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Please fix rpmlint warnings. Source0 should be OK. Rpmlint ------- Checking: maven-scr-plugin-1.21.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm maven-scr-plugin-javadoc-1.21.0-1.fc23.noarch.rpm maven-scr-plugin-1.21.0-1.fc23.src.rpm maven-scr-plugin.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog maven-scr-plugin.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache License V2.0 maven-scr-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation maven-scr-plugin-javadoc.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog maven-scr-plugin-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache License V2.0 maven-scr-plugin.src: W: no-version-in-last-changelog maven-scr-plugin.src: W: invalid-license Apache License V2.0 maven-scr-plugin.src:4: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 4) maven-scr-plugin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-scr-plugin-1.21.0.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 9 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- maven-scr-plugin.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog maven-scr-plugin.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache License V2.0 maven-scr-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation maven-scr-plugin-javadoc.noarch: W: no-version-in-last-changelog maven-scr-plugin-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache License V2.0 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Requires -------- maven-scr-plugin (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): felix-osgi-compendium felix-osgi-core java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(org.apache.felix:org.apache.felix.scr.generator) mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-archiver) mvn(org.apache.maven:maven-plugin-api) mvn(org.sonatype.plexus:plexus-build-api) objectweb-asm maven-scr-plugin-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- maven-scr-plugin: maven-scr-plugin mvn(org.apache.felix:maven-scr-plugin) mvn(org.apache.felix:maven-scr-plugin:pom:) maven-scr-plugin-javadoc: maven-scr-plugin-javadoc -- 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