https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230874 --- Comment #5 from Jie Kang <jkang@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #4) > 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 Fixed. > [!]: Tarball in SRPM suggests gzipped, but is actually xz compressed. Please > fix the file extension. The tarball has been brought in from felix' source-release repo's instead. > [!]: Description in SRPM says "Apache Felix' Service Component Runtime" which > differs from spec. Fixed. > [!]: 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. The plugin fails to compile with versions below this. Changed to use >= > [!]: Why is this %mvn_file there? Is it needed? Removed > [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 Fixed. > > 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 Fixed. > [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. I have run rpmlint on the spec, rpm and srpm files. Is there is anything else I need to do here?; > [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. Fixed to use felix' source-release tarball instead. > [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. Fixed. > 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