https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1878902 --- Comment #1 from Andy Mender <andymenderunix@xxxxxxxxx> --- I don't have much experience with packaging Java stuff, but I see this has been sitting around for a while so I want to help. Koji build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=51604491 > Requires: java-headless > Requires: javapackages-tools The Java Packaging Guidelines mention also that a Requires on javapackages-filesystem should be added: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_buildrequires_and_requires > Requires: javapackages-filesystem > %package javadoc > Summary: Javadocs for %{name} > Requires: javapackages-tools The guidelines mention that the %{name}-javadoc subpackage should be explicitly declared as noarch: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_javadoc_installation > %files > %doc Echoserver.md Eventmachine.md Gotchas.md PacketReader.md README.md > %{_javadir}/naga.jar > %{_javadir}/naga-3_0.jar No %license file added to the package and I see neither the old nor the new upstream have a license file in their source tree. Also, only the old upstream mentions that the license is MIT. Could you ask upstream to add a license file for the MIT license? Also, a very minor thing, but you can use %{name} instead of "naga" :). The rest of the review: 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 Review: The plugin was orphaned 2+ years ago. - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/naga See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names Review: it's fine, since it's an unretirement request. ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. Note: Using prebuilt packages [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [!]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Expat License". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/amender/rpmbuild/SPECS/naga/naga/licensecheck.txt Review: Presumably yes. [!]: 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 [?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). Review: Yes, but as mentioned before, instances of "naga" can be replaced with %{name} [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. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 5 files. Review: naga-javadoc added as subpackage. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 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 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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. Review: mention in a commment before. [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. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Review: If the supplied patches are related to particular BRs or tickets with upstream, it would be worth adding these to the SPEC as well. [-]: 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. Review: upstream provides some JUnit tests: https://github.com/lerno/naga/tree/master/src/test/naga Not sure whether "ant" builds them and one could add them as a %check step? [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [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: No rpmlint messages. Rpmlint ------- Checking: naga-3.0-15.20150330git054a930.fc34.noarch.rpm naga-javadoc-3.0-15.20150330git054a930.fc34.noarch.rpm naga-3.0-15.20150330git054a930.fc34.src.rpm naga-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados naga.src:23: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 5, tab: line 23) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: no installed packages by name naga-javadoc (none): E: no installed packages by name naga 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/lerno/naga/archive/054a930d1f346eda5ac48edc4c51d60f811f1de9/naga-054a930d1f346eda5ac48edc4c51d60f811f1de9.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 027cfadb6856e125cc204f3736c7e7a7e269aa785bfa7040388df9bc77b8347c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 027cfadb6856e125cc204f3736c7e7a7e269aa785bfa7040388df9bc77b8347c Requires -------- naga (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools naga-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools Provides -------- naga: naga naga-javadoc: naga-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
