https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1412008 Roland Grunberg <rgrunber@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review- --- Comment #2 from Roland Grunberg <rgrunber@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines I Don't think we can use SCL macros within the spec file. This is something that was done a while ago to ease packaging but it's actually against the guidelines. See : https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#Software_Collection_Macros For software collections, there should be scripts in place that automatically insert the macros where needed, for the most part. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. docker-client-java.src:9: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 9) ===== 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. [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. [-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. [!]: 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. [!]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. [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 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: [x]: 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]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. Since this is a package rename request, it should be ok to simply rename the package and update to a newer version. There is an active bug for updating to the latest upstream release (Bug 1343785, currently 7.0.0). Note that upstream releases very often. [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. [-]: %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. I've also rebuilt against Fedora rawhide in addition to f24. [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: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. [x]: Package rename guidelines were followed and correct Provides/Obsoletes are present Rpmlint ------- Checking: docker-client-java-4.0.6-4.fc24.noarch.rpm docker-client-java-4.0.6-4.fc24.src.rpm docker-client-java.src:9: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 4, tab: line 9) 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- docker-client-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): glassfish-jaxb-api java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.core:jackson-databind) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.datatype:jackson-datatype-guava) mvn(com.fasterxml.jackson.jaxrs:jackson-jaxrs-json-provider) mvn(com.github.jnr:jnr-unixsocket) mvn(com.google.guava:guava) mvn(commons-lang:commons-lang) mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-compress) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient) mvn(org.bouncycastle:bcpkix-jdk15on) mvn(org.glassfish.jersey.connectors:jersey-apache-connector) mvn(org.glassfish.jersey.core:jersey-client) mvn(org.glassfish.jersey.media:jersey-media-json-jackson) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) osgi(org.glassfish.hk2.locator) Provides -------- docker-client-java: docker-client docker-client-java mvn(com.spotify:docker-client) mvn(com.spotify:docker-client:pom:) osgi(com.spotify.docker.client) Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1412008 Buildroot used: fedora-24-x86_64 (built against fedora rawhide also) 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