https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908040 dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. | |com Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |dan.cermak@cgc-instruments. | |com Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value Flags| |fedora-review+ --- Comment #1 from dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx --- This looks good to me, I have just one thing to note: the package is licensed under the GPLv2 with the classpath exception, but there is stuff inside licensed under the BSD 3-clause (under jol-smaples/). And for some reason there's a bunch of THIRD-PARTY files that include the Expat/MIT license. Do you know what's the matter here? Since the package is otherwise good, I'll approve it and let you handle the license situation as you see fit. Thanks for packaging this! 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "Unknown or generated", "Expat License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License". 13 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/dan/fedora- scm/1908040-jol/licensecheck.txt [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. [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. [-]: 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 20480 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 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 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: [x]: 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jol- parent , jol-core , jol-cli [?]: 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]: 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: jol-parent-0.14-1.fc34.noarch.rpm jol-core-0.14-1.fc34.noarch.rpm jol-cli-0.14-1.fc34.noarch.rpm jol-0.14-1.fc34.src.rpm jol-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation jol-cli.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- jol-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation jol-cli.noarch: W: no-documentation 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/openjdk/jol/archive/0.14/jol-0.14.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : c9f913f5c63fe7e48cb0d3f81ef55cdd4073d1d9ead77172ed4ccc6d0e0164e7 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : c9f913f5c63fe7e48cb0d3f81ef55cdd4073d1d9ead77172ed4ccc6d0e0164e7 Requires -------- jol-parent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem jol-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem jol-cli (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-filesystem jol-core mvn(net.sf.jopt-simple:jopt-simple) mvn(org.openjdk.jol:jol-core) Provides -------- jol-parent: jol-parent mvn(org.openjdk.jol:jol-parent:pom:) jol-core: jol-core mvn(org.openjdk.jol:jol-core) mvn(org.openjdk.jol:jol-core:pom:) jol-cli: jol-cli mvn(org.openjdk.jol:jol-cli) mvn(org.openjdk.jol:jol-cli:pom:) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1908040 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Java, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Perl, PHP, Python, SugarActivity, R, Ocaml, Haskell, C/C++, fonts 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
