https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034816 Petra Alice Mikova <pmikova@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED --- Comment #4 from Petra Alice Mikova <pmikova@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Hi Jaya. Apologies for the delay! I reviewed your package - it is mostly okay, one thing it needs is versioned dependencies in subpackages. If not, please specify why. Also take a look at the rpmlint output and if possible, try to fix the issues or reason why it is not necessary. After these changes, the package is okay to go. Thank you! Generated review template below: 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. Note: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 2 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 Note: Can't find any BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used [x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage- utils for %update_maven_depmap macro [x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun [x]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: 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-jd- decompiler-core [x]: 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. Java: [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== 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-jd-decompiler-1.1.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm java-jd-decompiler-javadoc-1.1.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm java-jd-decompiler-core-1.1.3-1.fc36.noarch.rpm java-jd-decompiler-1.1.3-1.fc36.src.rpm java-jd-decompiler.noarch: E: summary-too-long C Standalone JAVA library containing the JAVA decompiler of "Java Decompiler project" java-jd-decompiler.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary java-jd-decompiler-core.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C JD-Core is a standalone JAVA library containing the JAVA decompiler of "Java Decompiler project". java-jd-decompiler-core.noarch: E: description-line-too-long C It support Java 1.8.0 to Java 12.0, including Lambda expressions, method references and default methods. java-jd-decompiler.src: E: summary-too-long C Standalone JAVA library containing the JAVA decompiler of "Java Decompiler project" java-jd-decompiler.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary java-jd-decompiler.src: W: strange-permission java-jd-decompiler 755 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 3 warnings. Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/java-decompiler/jd-core/archive/refs/tags/v1.1.3.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 98dfdbef1e6ac1814bf5fe4b58027eb655d85b92abf266e957982dd09f7899ba CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 98dfdbef1e6ac1814bf5fe4b58027eb655d85b92abf266e957982dd09f7899ba Requires -------- java-jd-decompiler (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/bash java-jd-decompiler-core java-jd-decompiler-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem java-jd-decompiler-core (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-11-headless) javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- java-jd-decompiler: java-jd-decompiler java-jd-decompiler-javadoc: java-jd-decompiler-javadoc java-jd-decompiler-core: java-jd-decompiler-core mvn(org.jd:jd-core) mvn(org.jd:jd-core:pom:) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2034816 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: Ocaml, R, Perl, PHP, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity, fonts, C/C++ Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2034816 _______________________________________________ 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 Do not reply to spam on the list, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure
