https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230867 --- Comment #11 from Jie Kang <jkang@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Severin Gehwolf from comment #10) > Here is an informal review of felix-scr 1.6.2. It built fine for me. Thanks! > > Package Review > ============== > > [!] URL in spec should be: > > http://felix.apache.org/documentation/subprojects/apache-felix-service- > component-runtime.html Done > [!] There are references in spec to version 1.8.x. Please fix to use > 1.6.2 instead. Fixed > [!] Summary in spec should be: > "Summary: Apache Felix Declarative Services Runtime" Fixed > [!] Please remove commented out "#BuildRequires: mvn(org.eclipse:osgi)" > Removed > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > > ===== 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]: 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. > [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. > [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/felix > This should be OK. I don't think this is specific to felix-scr. This is > probably a bug in felix-osgi-core or some base package all other felix > packages should require. > [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/felix, > /usr/share/maven-poms/felix > This is OK. Same as above. > [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. > [?]: 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 30720 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: 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]: Dist tag is present. > [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 does not use a name that already exists. > [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. > [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: > [x]: 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. I have sent a message to felix-dev list about including the license in the source repository. > [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 felix- > scr-javadoc > [?]: Package functions as described. > [x]: Latest version is packaged. > It's OK for 1.6.2 rather than 1.8.2 to be packaged, since 1.8.2 version > uses non-free org.osgi:osgi.core/enterprise > [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. > Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments > [?]: 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. > [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. > [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 (ant/maven/etc.) > [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI > > ===== EXTRA items ===== > > Generic: > [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. > Note: No rpmlint messages. > [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. > > > Rpmlint > ------- > Checking: felix-scr-1.6.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > felix-scr-javadoc-1.6.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm > felix-scr-1.6.2-2.fc21.src.rpm > felix-scr.src: W: invalid-url Source0: org.apache.felix.scr-1.6.2.tar.gz > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > Once the comment gets updated how to generate the source tarball this should > be fine. > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. The spec and srpm have been updated with the fixes. Thank you very much for the review! -- 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