[Bug 1908039] Review Request: java-diff-utils - Java library to create and apply patches

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1908039

dan.cermak@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 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, thanks for packaging it Jerry!

I've approved the package, only one small heads-up: the package appears to
contain two gplv3+ licensed files. I guess that this might be a mistake from
the past, so I've opened an issue about that upstream:
https://github.com/java-diff-utils/java-diff-utils/issues/111. I don't think
that it is necessary to add the GPL to the license field, but please do as you
see best fit.


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: "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0",
     "GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "Apache License 2.0". 44
     files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/dan/fedora-scm/1908038-jline2/1908039-java-diff-
     utils/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]: 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]: 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:
[-]: 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-
     diff-utils-parent
[?]: 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.
[-]: 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.
[?]: 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: java-diff-utils-4.9-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          java-diff-utils-parent-4.9-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          java-diff-utils-jgit-4.9-1.fc34.noarch.rpm
          java-diff-utils-4.9-1.fc34.src.rpm
java-diff-utils.noarch: W: no-documentation
java-diff-utils-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation
java-diff-utils-jgit.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
java-diff-utils.noarch: W: no-documentation
java-diff-utils-jgit.noarch: W: no-documentation
java-diff-utils-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.



Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/java-diff-utils/java-diff-utils/archive/java-diff-utils-parent-4.9.tar.gz
:
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     :
685de517cca58b6eec1329c316efd26b2fb93c193a42784a1b1577e5fba8f3c0
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
685de517cca58b6eec1329c316efd26b2fb93c193a42784a1b1577e5fba8f3c0


Requires
--------
java-diff-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem

java-diff-utils-parent (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem
    mvn(org.apache.felix:maven-bundle-plugin)
    mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin)

java-diff-utils-jgit (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    java-diff-utils
    java-headless
    javapackages-filesystem
    mvn(io.github.java-diff-utils:java-diff-utils)
    mvn(org.eclipse.jgit:org.eclipse.jgit)



Provides
--------
java-diff-utils:
    java-diff-utils
    mvn(io.github.java-diff-utils:java-diff-utils)
    mvn(io.github.java-diff-utils:java-diff-utils:pom:)
    osgi(io.github.java-diff-utils)

java-diff-utils-parent:
    java-diff-utils-parent
    mvn(io.github.java-diff-utils:java-diff-utils-parent:pom:)

java-diff-utils-jgit:
    java-diff-utils-jgit
    mvn(io.github.java-diff-utils:java-diff-utils-jgit)
    mvn(io.github.java-diff-utils:java-diff-utils-jgit:pom:)



Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1908039
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: Perl, Python, Ocaml, R, SugarActivity, Haskell, fonts, PHP,
C/C++
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




[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Users]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite Conditions]     [KDE Users]

  Powered by Linux