https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403030 --- Comment #9 from Jos de Kloe <josdekloe@xxxxxxxxx> --- Here is a first attempt to review your package. Main issue is that I get an error when I try to load a file in hdfview. Also, the complaints about directory ownership should be adressed I think. Finally, it would be nice if you could remove some of the rpmlint errors, which seem mostly caused by empty txt files. Do they really need to be empty? Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= Manually added issue: - hdfview gives an " Unsupported fileformat" error when I try to open an example file from the samples directory Issues generated by fedora-review - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software' ===== 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. present in BUILD/hdfview-2.13.0-Source/COPYING [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/mime, /usr/share/icons/hicolor, /usr/share/mime/packages ==>actually I don't really know how this should be solved, the packaging guidelines are clear enough: the directories you create must be owned by this package, or by one of its dependencies in the "natural dependency chain" or by the filesystem, man, or other explicitly created -filesystem packages. Is this the case for these directories? If so, please add some comment to detail this. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/mimetypes(hicolor-icon-theme, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22(hicolor-icon-theme, fedora- logos, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/apps(hicolor-icon- theme, fedora-logos), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/apps(qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16/apps(qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora- logos, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/mimetypes(hicolor- icon-theme), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/16x16(qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48(qmmp, hicolor- icon-theme, fedora-logos, keepassx, nedit), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/48x48/apps(qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora- logos, keepassx, nedit), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/22x22/mimetypes (hicolor-icon-theme, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32(qmmp, hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos, keepassx), /usr/share/icons/hicolor/32x32/mimetypes(hicolor-icon-theme, keepassx) ==>same comment as above [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: 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]: update-desktop-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package contains desktop file(s) with a MimeType: entry. Note: desktop file(s) with MimeType entry in hdfview [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in hdfview [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 20480 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: 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 Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: update-mime-database is invoked in %post and %postun if package stores mime configuration in /usr/share/mime/packages. Note: mimeinfo files in: hdfview See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#mimeinfo [-]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jhdfobj , hdfview-doc [!]: Package functions as described. ==>when I try to run the hdfview tool it does not seem to work properly. from a mock shell I can run hdfview and the gui launches perfectly (with all its buttons!) and seems responsive. However, when I try to open a file I get the error: java.io.IOException: Unsupported fileformat - hdf5_test.h5 Maybe I overlooked something? [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. ==>if I read the patch correctly, it is intended to work around the removal of the bundled stuff in lib. A small comment to explain this (and that no upstream change is requested since this is Fedora specific) would be nice. [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. [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [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]: 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: hdfview-2.13.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm jhdfobj-2.13.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm hdfview-doc-2.13.0-1.fc26.noarch.rpm hdfview-2.13.0-1.fc26.src.rpm hdfview.noarch: W: no-documentation hdfview.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hdfview hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateGroupAbsoluteRelative.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateFile.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateGroupDataset.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/samples/tst0001.fits hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.groups.H5ObjectEx_G_Create.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateAttribute.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateGroup.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_ReadWrite.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateDataset.txt hdfview.src: W: strange-permission getsources.sh 775 hdfview.src: W: strange-permission hdfview 775 hdfview.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version} hdfview.src: W: invalid-url Source0: hdfview-2.13.0-nolibs.tar.xz 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 7 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- hdfview.noarch: W: no-documentation hdfview.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary hdfview hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.groups.H5ObjectEx_G_Create.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateDataset.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/samples/tst0001.fits hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateAttribute.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateGroupAbsoluteRelative.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateGroup.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateGroupDataset.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_CreateFile.txt hdfview-doc.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/doc/hdfview-doc/examples/testfiles/examples.intro.H5Object_ReadWrite.txt 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 8 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- hdfview (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh desktop-file-utils java java-headless javapackages-tools jhdfobj mvn(edu.ucar:cdm) mvn(gov.nasa.gsfc.heasarc:nom-tam-fits) mvn(org.hdfgroup:jhdf) mvn(org.hdfgroup:jhdf5) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-simple) hdfview-doc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jhdfobj (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools mvn(org.hdfgroup:jhdf) mvn(org.hdfgroup:jhdf5) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) Provides -------- hdfview: appdata() appdata(hdfview.appdata.xml) application() application(hdfview.desktop) hdfview mimehandler(application/x-hdf) mimehandler(application/x-hdf5) mvn(org.hdfgroup:jhdfview) hdfview-doc: hdfview-doc jhdfobj: jhdfobj mvn(org.hdfgroup:jhdfobj) Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/jhdf5.jar ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/slf4j-slf4j-nop.jar ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/jhdf.jar ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/slf4j-api.jar ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/slf4j-jcl-over-slf4j.jar ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/slf4j-simple.jar ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/junit.jar ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/thredds_cdm.jar ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/slf4j-slf4j-simple.jar ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/slf4j-nop.jar ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/nom-tam-fits.jar ./hdfview-2.13.0-Source/lib/slf4j-slf4j-api.jar JdK: manually checked that these jar libs are removed from the srpm, so this is no issue. Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -o -n -n hdfview Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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