https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249543 Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |POST Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4) > Thanks for your help! :) > if for you is the same, i would have more interest, for now, > to try to review the dependencies listed here: > https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1363923 Oh, man. I've had enough for today I think, but I'll try to find some time. Don't know when though, I'll be travelling for the next few weeks. This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla: - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such a list, create one. - Add your own remarks to the template checks. - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not listed by fedora-review. - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this case you could also file a bug against fedora-review - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines in what you paste. - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint ones are mandatory, though) - Remove this text Package Review ============== 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. EPL. [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)", "EPL-1.0", "Unknown or generated". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/tmp/1249543-eclipse-paho-mqtt-java/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/eclipse/droplets, /usr/share/eclipse → add Requires: eclipse-filesystem [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. The name is a bit crazy, but it matches upstream ;) [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 10240 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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. [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 eclipse- paho-mqtt-java-tests , eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-javadoc Not needed. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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. Tests disabled. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-1.0.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests-1.0.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-javadoc-1.0.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-1.0.2-1.fc26.src.rpm eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://eclipse.org/paho/clients/java/ <urlopen error _ssl.c:629: The handshake operation timed out> Works fine in firefox. eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- eclipse-paho-mqtt-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3) Provides -------- eclipse-paho-mqtt-java: eclipse-paho-mqtt-java mvn(org.eclipse.paho:java-parent:pom:) mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.eclipse.feature) mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.eclipse.view) mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3) mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.mqtt.utility) mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.mqtt.utility:pom:) mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.ui.core) mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.ui.plugin:pom:) mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.ui:pom:) osgi(org.eclipse.paho.client.eclipse.feature) osgi(org.eclipse.paho.client.eclipse.view) osgi(org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3) osgi(org.eclipse.paho.ui.core) eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-javadoc: eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-javadoc eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests: eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3.test) mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3.test::test-sources:) mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3.test::tests:) mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3.test:pom:) All good. Should add depenedency on eclipse-filesystem. Package is APPROVED. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx