https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1403030 --- Comment #10 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbyszek@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jos de Kloe from comment #9) > 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? Thank you for the review! > ======= > Manually added issue: > - hdfview gives an " Unsupported fileformat" error when I try to > open an example file from the samples directory Hm, any specific file, or all of them? They all work for me, so maybe it's a question of dependencies? I now see that the binary packages have no version dependency on jhdf5. I'll add that. > 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 Right. There's no javadoc. It's optional and I didn't think it'd be particularly useful, but I'll generate it and check again. Update: javadocs look useful. I added a javadoc subpackage. > - 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' This is already fixed in the new srpm. > ===== 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) Fixed. I added R:hicolor-icon-theme. > ==>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? I think this must be because you had old jhdf5. I added a dependency now, let's see if this helps. > [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. There's single patch, and a comment which explains why this patch is suitable for Fedora, but not for upstream. > ==>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 I removed the whole testfiles/ directory from the binary package. It doesn't seem useful. > hdfview.src: W: strange-permission getsources.sh 775 > hdfview.src: W: strange-permission hdfview 775 That's a known rpmlint bug: I have umask 002 here, and that's a perfectly fine value. rpmlint shouldn't warn about that. > hdfview.src:8: W: macro-in-comment %{version} It's a bit of a hack, but I need to because it is used to generate the download url: 'rpmspec -p ... | grep ^#Source0' in getsources.sh. Spec URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/hdfview/hdfview.spec SRPM URL: http://in.waw.pl/~zbyszek/fedora/hdfview/hdfview-2.13.0-1.fc25.src.rpm (note changed url) -- 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