https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1783386 --- Comment #2 from Mat Booth <mat.booth@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Just one issue popped up: Issues: ======= - Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. Note: sonatype-oss-parent is deprecated Not sure why that package is reported as deprecated, but TBH nothing of value is inherited from the sonatype OSS parent pom (it contains only stuff interesting for doing upstream releases) -- I would just remove by adding a call to "%pom_remove_parent" in the %prep section and remove the BR Full review follows: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== 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 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. [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. [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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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 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 Note: Can't find any BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in auto- common , auto-service , auto-value [x]: Package functions as described. [-]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [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. [-]: %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]: 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 ------- auto-common.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided auto-factory auto-service.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ServiceLoader -> Service Loader, Service-loader, Serviceable auto.src: W: strange-permission gen_auto_tarball.sh 775 auto.src: W: invalid-url Source0: auto-value-1.5.4.tar.gz 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. These warnings are all fine (obsolete is not provided because the functionality was removed; ServiceLoader is a Java term; tarball and generation script are explained in comments) Requires -------- auto (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(org.sonatype.oss:oss-parent:pom:) auto-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(com.google.guava:guava) auto-service (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(com.google.auto:auto-common) mvn(com.google.guava:guava) auto-value (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem mvn(com.google.auto.service:auto-service) mvn(com.google.auto:auto-common) mvn(com.google.guava:guava) mvn(com.squareup:javapoet) auto-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- auto: auto mvn(com.google.auto:auto-parent:pom:) auto-common: auto-common mvn(com.google.auto:auto-common) mvn(com.google.auto:auto-common:pom:) auto-service: auto-service mvn(com.google.auto.service:auto-service) mvn(com.google.auto.service:auto-service:pom:) auto-value: auto-value mvn(com.google.auto.value:auto-value) mvn(com.google.auto.value:auto-value:pom:) auto-javadoc: auto-javadoc -- 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
