https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1594313 --- Comment #18 from Severin Gehwolf <sgehwolf@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed (FE-Legal clarification) Issues: ======= - Package java-11-openjdk provides "java" and "jre". Intentional? Are we ready for people requiring "java" to get JDK-11? - Some licenses in sources are not listed in "License" field. I'm blocking FE-Legal for a review. Note that I've asked about NTP license here: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/legal@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/thread/2QXHMTZ47DMMARJVI6PUMSYUPVFAGLCV/ - Please remove no longer needed defattr in %files. See below. - Some descriptions/summaries exceed 79 characters. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Common_Rpmlint_issues#description-line-too-long Please fix descriptions/summaries. See rpmlint output. - There are many typos in the spec file. Please run: $ hunspell java-11-openjdk.spec and fix them. ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [x]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. Note: See rpmlint output. Note from reviewer: Only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory. Verify they are not in ld path. Note from reviewer: Not in ld path. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) Generic: [ ]: 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: licensecheck output file attached. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [-]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. Note from reviewer: Relevant compiler flags/linker flags are passed to the OpenJDK build. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/java/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64/conf/management/jmxremote.password.template %config /etc/java/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64/conf/accessibility.properties %config /etc/java/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64-slowdebug/conf/management/jmxremote.password.template %config /etc/java/java-11-openjdk/java-11-openjdk-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64-slowdebug/conf/accessibility.properties Note from reviewer: This seems OK as those are password templates and properties not expected to be changed by the user. [!]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [-]: 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. [!]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package contains icons. Note: icons in java-11-openjdk, java-11-openjdk-slowdebug [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [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]: 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]: No %config files under /usr. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. Note: Uses parallel make via other means and OpenJDK build support. [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [-]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define buildoutputdir() %{expand:openjdk/build%{?1}}, %define uniquejavadocdir() %{expand:%{fullversion}%{?1}}, %define uniquesuffix() %{expand:%{fullversion}.%{_arch}%{?1}}, %define etcjavadir() %{expand:%{etcjavasubdir}/%{uniquesuffix -- %{?1}}}, %define sdkdir() %{expand:%{uniquesuffix -- %{?1}}}, %define jrelnk() %{expand:jre-%{javaver}-%{origin}-%{version}-%{release}.%{_arch}%{?1}}, %define sdkbindir() %{expand:%{_jvmdir}/%{sdkdir -- %{?1}}/bin}, %define jrebindir() %{expand:%{_jvmdir}/%{sdkdir -- %{?1}}/bin}, %define post_script() %{expand:, %define post_headless() %{expand:, %define postun_script() %{expand:, %define postun_headless() %{expand:, %define posttrans_script() %{expand:, %define post_devel() %{expand:, %define postun_devel() %{expand:, %define posttrans_devel() %{expand:, %define post_javadoc() %{expand:, %define postun_javadoc() %{expand:, %define post_javadoc_zip() %{expand:, %define postun_javadoc_zip() %{expand:, %define files_jre() %{expand:, %define files_jre_headless() %{expand:, %define files_devel() %{expand:, %define files_jmods() %{expand:, %define files_demo() %{expand:, %define files_src() %{expand:, %define files_javadoc() %{expand:, %define files_javadoc_zip() %{expand:, %define java_rpo() %{expand:, %define java_headless_rpo() %{expand:, %define java_devel_rpo() %{expand:, %define java_jmods_rpo() %{expand:, %define java_demo_rpo() %{expand:, %define java_javadoc_rpo() %{expand:, %define java_src_rpo() %{expand: Note from reviewer: These need to be %define as they should be expanded when being used. [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. Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: java-11-openjdk* packages are arch specific. [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 703918080 bytes in /usr/share java-11-openjdk-javadoc-zip- slowdebug-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm:50954240, java-11-openjdk- javadoc-zip-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm:50954240, java-11-openjdk- javadoc-slowdebug-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm:300718080, java-11 -openjdk-javadoc-11.0.ea.19-1.fc28.x86_64.rpm:300718080 See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ReviewGuidelines#Package_Review_Guidelines Note from reviewer: Due to graal and AOT being available only on certain architectures, javadocs are architecture dependent. [x]: Rpmlint is run on debuginfo package(s). Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. -- 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 Fedora Code of Conduct: https://getfedora.org/code-of-conduct.html List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/message/ARNXOED3JOXXEGJ6WXYHSK4I64SAJXUX/
