https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1312015 --- Comment #17 from Raphael Groner <projects.rg@xxxxxxxx> --- GPL (v2) -------- JavadocOfflineSearch-JavadocOfflineSearch-2.2/src/javadocofflinesearch/server/ServerLauncher.java JavadocOfflineSearch-JavadocOfflineSearch-2.2/src/javadocofflinesearch/server/TinyHttpdImpl.java => Please fix, we now use GPLv3+. All other files are without license header, so LICENSE applies generally. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /home/builder/fedora- review/1312015-javadocofflinesearch/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the buildsystem See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java ===== 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: "GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 29 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/builder/fedora- review/1312015-javadocofflinesearch/licensecheck.txt => Two source files have license header of GPLv2+. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. => See above. [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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines => Please fix license of source files, and Requires. [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]: 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]: 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]: 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]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. [x]: File names are valid UTF-8. [x]: 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 [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [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 => Not available. [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== 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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). => See above. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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. => Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=13508089 [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. => Use 'install -p' or 'cp -p'. [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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [?]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) => See the comments about discrepancy with Netbeans. [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: javadocofflinesearch-2.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm javadocofflinesearch-javadoc-2.2-1.fc25.noarch.rpm javadocofflinesearch-2.2-1.fc25.src.rpm javadocofflinesearch.noarch: W: no-documentation => You could add '%doc README.md' if of any help for users. => IGNORE all below: javadocofflinesearch.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary javadocofflinesearch javadocofflinesearch-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados javadocofflinesearch.src: W: strange-permission JavadocOfflineSearch-JavadocOfflineSearch-2.2.tar.gz 640 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory javadocofflinesearch.noarch: W: no-documentation javadocofflinesearch.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary javadocofflinesearch javadocofflinesearch-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. => IGNORE all Requires -------- javadocofflinesearch (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): apache-commons-cli java-headless jpackage-utils lucene-analysis lucene-core lucene-queries lucene-queryparser tagsoup javadocofflinesearch-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javadocofflinesearch javapackages-tools jpackage-utils Provides -------- javadocofflinesearch: javadocofflinesearch javadocofflinesearch-javadoc: javadocofflinesearch-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/judovana/JavadocOfflineSearch/releases/tag/JavadocOfflineSearch-2.2/JavadocOfflineSearch-JavadocOfflineSearch-2.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 72a6314fa9146dfe5b3908fc9dcf06670aa4dcba48744ea0b60d64ecf5719ceb CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 38134ec817f64cabb5222cc8380d5cab7593c8649f448110a96fd84d3d4dfb14 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -v -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1312015 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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6 -- 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