https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1438673 --- Comment #36 from Michal Vala <mvala@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines - There are more different licenses than mentioned in spec file. run licensecheck - Skipped tests. Run them or make clear why they're not run. - Package does not own all dirs it creates. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2 or later)", "MPL (v5)", "MPL (v1.1) GPL (v2 or later) or LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Public domain BSD (3 clause)", "GPL (v2 or later) or LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "MPL (v1.1) LGPL (v2 or later)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "MPL (v1.1) LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "LGPL (v2.1)", "ISC", "LGPL (v2 or later)", "GPL (v3 or later)", "zlib/libpng", "QPL (v6)", "GPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF address)", "BSD (2 clause)", "CC by (v3.0)", "GPL", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "MPL (v1.1)", "*No copyright* Public domain", "Apache", "NTP (legal disclaimer)", "*No copyright* BSD (unspecified)", "BSD (3 clause)", "ICU", "LGPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* BSD (2 clause)", "QPL (v3)", "CC0", "*No copyright* CDDL", "QPL (v7)", "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "GPL (v2)". 8711 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/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 requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/man/ja_JP.UTF-8/man1, /usr/share/man/ja_JP.UTF-8 [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/man/ja_JP.UTF-8, /usr/lib/jvm/openjfx, /usr/lib/jvm, /usr/share/man/ja_JP.UTF-8/man1 [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [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. [x]: 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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 4 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]: 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 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]: 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: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [!]: If tests are skipped during package build explain why it was needed in a comment Note: Tests seem to be skipped. Verify there is a commment giving a reason for this [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in openjfx- devel , openjfx-src , openjfx-javadoc , openjfx-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [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. [!]: %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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: openjfx subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.4.1 starting (python version = 3.6.1)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: init plugins INFO: selinux disabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.1 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.1 Finish: chroot init Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled HW Info plugin Mock Version: 1.4.1 INFO: Mock Version: 1.4.1 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/results/openjfx-javadoc-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.noarch.rpm /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/results/openjfx-debuginfo-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/results/openjfx-src-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.noarch.rpm /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/results/openjfx-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/results/openjfx-devel-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.noarch.rpm ERROR: Command failed: # /usr/bin/systemd-nspawn -q -M ad991bcb125141b89d1fcae9f44ff0d5 -D /var/lib/mock/fedora-25-x86_64-bootstrap/root -a --setenv=TERM=vt100 --setenv=SHELL=/bin/bash --setenv=HOME=/builddir --setenv=HOSTNAME=mock --setenv=PATH=/usr/bin:/bin:/usr/sbin:/sbin --setenv=PROMPT_COMMAND=printf "\033]0;<mock-chroot>\007" --setenv=PS1=<mock-chroot> \s-\v\$ --setenv=LANG=en_US.utf8 --setenv=LC_MESSAGES=C /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-25-x86_64/root/ --releasever 25 --disableplugin=local --setopt=deltarpm=false install /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/results/openjfx-javadoc-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.noarch.rpm /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/results/openjfx-debuginfo-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/results/openjfx-src-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.noarch.rpm /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/results/openjfx-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.x86_64.rpm /home/mvala/rpmbuild/review/1438673-openjfx/results/openjfx-devel-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.noarch.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: openjfx-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.x86_64.rpm openjfx-devel-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.noarch.rpm openjfx-src-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.noarch.rpm openjfx-javadoc-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.noarch.rpm openjfx-debuginfo-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.x86_64.rpm openjfx-8.0.152-7.b03.fc25.src.rpm openjfx.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL v2 with exceptions openjfx.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ openjfx.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ openjfx.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/openjfx/LICENSE openjfx-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL v2 with exceptions openjfx-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ openjfx-devel.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ openjfx-devel.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openjfx-devel.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/openjfx-devel/LICENSE openjfx-src.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL v2 with exceptions openjfx-src.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ openjfx-src.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ openjfx-src.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib openjfx-src.noarch: W: no-documentation openjfx-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL v2 with exceptions openjfx-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ openjfx-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ openjfx-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/openjfx-javadoc/LICENSE openjfx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license GPL v2 with exceptions openjfx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ openjfx-debuginfo.x86_64: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ openjfx-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources openjfx.src: W: invalid-license GPL v2 with exceptions openjfx.src: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ openjfx.src: W: invalid-license LGPL v2+ 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 21 warnings. -- 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
