https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1202470 Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|needinfo?(antti.jarvinen@ka | |tiska.org) | --- Comment #13 from Antti Järvinen <antti.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxx> --- Sorry the delay, I made the initial review when I was not in packagers group so I considered my review only informational and then forgot about it. But ok, I can finish this review. I again used automated tool and then made manual checks. To put it short, there are 2 issues, first already mentioned in March: - license. - versioning because this looks like a snapshot package. But apart from that this looks ok to me. See comments below. -- Antti Generic: [!]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. -> I mark this now as "fail" because I'd like to get clarification about license of files in directories mozilla-export-scripts and ruby-gcj ; they seem legit to me but mention nothing about license. Are the files part of upstream distribution or where do they come from? [X]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Public domain", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "LGPL (v3 or later)", "BSD (3 clause)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (unversioned/unknown version)". 35 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /tmp/bug1202470/1202470-validator-htmlparser/licensecheck.txt [X]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [X]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [X]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [X]: Changelog in prescribed format. [X]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. -> Yes, but with questions presented above about the license. [-]: 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]: 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. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines -> There is disagreement about version. If I understood right, the released version 1.4 is old and the version packaged here is a more recent snapshot from version control. It should be versioned as stated in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Versioning#Snapshot_packages So "Release:" could became something like 20161101hg42d7aef60138 that looks ugly but tells both the date and the exact commit in mercurial. [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: No rpmlint messages. [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]: 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. [p]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in validator-htmlparser-javadoc [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. Well, build was tried in amd64, there it builds no problem. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. Looks like there is no test suite. [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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: validator-htmlparser-1.4-1.fc25.noarch.rpm validator-htmlparser-javadoc-1.4-1.fc25.noarch.rpm validator-htmlparser-1.4-1.fc25.src.rpm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- validator-htmlparser-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools validator-htmlparser (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(com.google.code.javaparser:javaparser) Provides -------- validator-htmlparser-javadoc: validator-htmlparser-javadoc validator-htmlparser: mvn(nu.validator.htmlparser:htmlparser) mvn(nu.validator.htmlparser:htmlparser:pom:) mvn(nu.validator.htmlparser:translator) mvn(nu.validator.htmlparser:translator:pom:) osgi(nu.validator.htmlparser) osgi(nu.validator.htmlparser.translator) validator-htmlparser Source checksums ---------------- https://hg.mozilla.org/projects/htmlparser/archive/42d7aef60138.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 56b68aa26ecd5a9cdd17bd8625e8e827f7a809341b6133001a733f929f728df1 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 56b68aa26ecd5a9cdd17bd8625e8e827f7a809341b6133001a733f929f728df1 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1202470 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx