https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1770582 --- Comment #3 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= 1. Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/java/jLEMS See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files Remove %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} from %files to fix this. It is included in .mfiles. 2. $ lems 1 2 3 4 Running the LEMS application... Error: Could not find or load main class org.lemsml.jlems.viz.VizMain Perhaps CLASSPATH should be set to %{_javadir}/%{name}/jlems.jar in %{_bindir}/lems? 3. https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Naming/#_case_sensitivity Does the package name need to contain uppercase letters? 4. These two manual dependencies: Requires: java-headless Requires: javapackages-filesystem are generated automatically, so do not need to be in the spec file. 5. The tests are not run. Can you add a %check script to do so? ===== 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]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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. But see the question above about upper case letters in the name. [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]: 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 10240 bytes in 1 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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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: [-]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not 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. [!]: %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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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]: 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: jLEMS-0.9.9.1-1.fc32.noarch.rpm jLEMS-javadoc-0.9.9.1-1.fc32.noarch.rpm jLEMS-0.9.9.1-1.fc32.src.rpm jLEMS.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doi -> dpi, do, oi jLEMS.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fninf -> inf jLEMS.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lems jLEMS.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doi -> dpi, do, oi jLEMS.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fninf -> inf 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- jLEMS.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US doi -> dpi, do, oi jLEMS.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US fninf -> inf jLEMS.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary lems 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/LEMS/jLEMS/archive/v0.9.9.1/jLEMS-0.9.9.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e61e6a656cb4feeb76a4e0a16b4cf3d1ea0d26a5e021642f6928c90d3d639b60 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e61e6a656cb4feeb76a4e0a16b4cf3d1ea0d26a5e021642f6928c90d3d639b60 Requires -------- jLEMS (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/sh java-headless javapackages-filesystem jLEMS-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- jLEMS: jLEMS mvn(org.lemsml:jlems) mvn(org.lemsml:jlems:pom:) jLEMS-javadoc: jLEMS-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.7.3 (44b83c7) last change: 2019-09-18 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1770582 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-{{ target_arch }} Active plugins: Generic, Java, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, SugarActivity, Python, Ruby, C/C++, R, PHP, Haskell, Perl, Ocaml Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- 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://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
