https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1636019 --- Comment #15 from jiri vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to get additional checks ===== 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. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GPL (v2 or later)", "Unknown or generated". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jvanek/Desktop/1636019-java-runtime-decompiler/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/applications(filesystem) there is /usr/share/applications/jrd.desktop imho correct [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. Please there is different version in changelog of spec, and of srpm. Pleae align. srpm ones seems to be wrong. [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-runtime- decompiler/plugins/FernflowerDecompilerWrapper.java %config /etc/java- runtime-decompiler/plugins/ProcyonDecompilerWrapper.java hat seems correct. where json files are about to be chnaged by user, the java ones are unlikely. [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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [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 must own all directories that it creates. [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]: 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]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build ===== 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 java- runtime-decompiler-javadoc please fix this [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. rawhide have some compilations errors. please fix it asap after pushed [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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). wrong changelog dates and bad version dleimiter. See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: java-runtime-decompiler-2.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm java-runtime-decompiler-javadoc-2.0-1.fc29.noarch.rpm java-runtime-decompiler-2.0-1.fc29.src.rpm java-runtime-decompiler.noarch: E: devel-dependency java-devel java-runtime-decompiler.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) decompilation -> recompilation, compilation, contemplation java-runtime-decompiler.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompile -> recompile, compile java-runtime-decompiler.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/java-runtime-decompiler/plugins/FernflowerDecompilerWrapper.java java-runtime-decompiler.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/java-runtime-decompiler/plugins/ProcyonDecompilerWrapper.java java-runtime-decompiler.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) decompilation -> recompilation, compilation, contemplation java-runtime-decompiler.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompile -> recompile, compile 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory java-runtime-decompiler-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/pmikova/java-runtime-decompiler <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> java-runtime-decompiler.noarch: E: devel-dependency java-devel java-runtime-decompiler.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) decompilation -> recompilation, compilation, contemplation java-runtime-decompiler.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US decompile -> recompile, compile java-runtime-decompiler.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: https://github.com/pmikova/java-runtime-decompiler <urlopen error [Errno -2] Name or service not known> java-runtime-decompiler.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/java-runtime-decompiler/plugins/FernflowerDecompilerWrapper.java java-runtime-decompiler.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/java-runtime-decompiler/plugins/ProcyonDecompilerWrapper.java 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 6 warnings. Diff spec file in url and in SRPM --------------------------------- --- /home/jvanek/Desktop/1636019-java-runtime-decompiler/srpm/java-runtime-decompiler.spec 2018-11-19 14:37:17.826214994 +0100 +++ /home/jvanek/Desktop/1636019-java-runtime-decompiler/srpm-unpacked/java-runtime-decompiler.spec 2018-11-19 12:52:53.000000000 +0100 @@ -73,8 +73,8 @@ %changelog -* Mon Nov 19 2018 Petra Mikova <petra.alice.mikova@xxxxxxxxx> - 2.0-1 +* Wed Nov 14 2018 Petra Mikova <petra.alice.mikova@xxxxxxxxx> - 2.0-1 - fixed issues listed in review (rhbz#1636019) - added installation of desktop file -* Wed Jun 06 2018 Petra Mikova <petra.alice.mikova@xxxxxxxxx> - 1.1-1 +* Wed Jun 06 2018 Petra Mikova <petra.alice.mikova@xxxxxxxxx> 1.1-1 - initial commit Requires -------- java-runtime-decompiler-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-runtime-decompiler javapackages-filesystem java-runtime-decompiler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash config(java-runtime-decompiler) java-devel java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(com.fifesoft:rsyntaxtextarea) mvn(com.google.code.gson:gson) mvn(com.sun:tools) mvn(org.jboss.byteman:byteman-install) Provides -------- java-runtime-decompiler-javadoc: java-runtime-decompiler-javadoc java-runtime-decompiler: application() application(fedora-jrd.desktop) config(java-runtime-decompiler) java-runtime-decompiler mvn(java-runtime-decompiler:decompiler-agent) mvn(java-runtime-decompiler:decompiler-agent:pom:) mvn(java-runtime-decompiler:java-runtime-decompiler:pom:) mvn(java-runtime-decompiler:runtime-decompiler) mvn(java-runtime-decompiler:runtime-decompiler:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/pmikova/java-runtime-decompiler/archive/java-runtime-decompiler-2.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 58e5e2203fba2b7b22048b6a9c411121b67b9aaecb321d82d3823ca243f7318b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 58e5e2203fba2b7b22048b6a9c411121b67b9aaecb321d82d3823ca243f7318b Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1636019 -m fedora-29-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-29-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 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
