https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2139799 --- Comment #11 from jiri vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [-]: Package contains no static executables. Jdk is portable as for https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/JdkInTreeLibsAndStdclibStatic#Build_all_JDKs_in_Fedora_against_in-tree_libraries_and_with_static_stdc.2B.2Blib [x]: If your application is a C or C++ application you must list a BuildRequires against gcc, gcc-c++ or clang. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. 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. [!]: 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. Thhe %license should be honoured even in case of this tarball [-]: 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* GNU General Public License, Version 2 Apache License 2.0", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "*No copyright* BSD 3-Clause License", "*No copyright* GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "BSD 3-Clause License", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 only [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 or later GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* Public domain GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "*No copyright* Public domain GNU General Public License v2.0 only [generated file]", "*No copyright* [generated file]", "GNU General Public License v2.0 only [generated file]", "Cryptix Public License", "BSD 2-Clause License", "Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2016)", "zlib License", "Freetype Project License", "MIT License", "MIT (old) ISC License", "MIT Open Group variant", "Apache License 2.0", "W3C Software Notice and License (2002-12-31)", "Standard ML of New Jersey License", "Apache License 1.1", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License, Version 2.1", "zlib License MIT License", "BSD 2-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "MIT (old)", "ISC License", "MIT License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "BSD 3-Clause License [generated file]", "GNU General Public License, Version 3", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "zlib License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "*No copyright* MIT License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "libpng License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "MIT Open Group variant GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "BSD 3-Clause License GNU General Public License v3.0 or later", "GNU Lesser General Public License v2.1 or later", "Public domain GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "Unicode License Agreement - Data Files and Software (2015) GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "Freetype Project License [generated file]", "W3C License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "Khronos License GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "Apache License 1.1 GNU General Public License v2.0 only", "W3C Software Notice and License (1998-07-20)", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Freetype Project License XFree86 License", "NTP License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "W3C License", "*No copyright* Public domain". 9180 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/jvanek/2139799-java-11-openjdk- portable/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. licnse file is not honoured at all. need fixing [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/lib/jvm Afaik usr/lib/jvm is owned by jpackagetools, but need to be doubel checked [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [!]: 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. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [!]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. Debuginfo is external for release and internal fro fast and slow debug. This sonds correct. Afaik a step is needed, to pack release bianries twice. Once before the debuginfo strip. Once after. This is big change, and current state is BETTER. So leaving it as it is [!]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. java_arches have to be honoured [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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [x]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. as per jdk project build recomandations [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. [!]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in java-11-openjdk-portable-slowdebug , java-11-openjdk-portable- fastdebug , java-11-openjdk-portable-devel , java-11-openjdk-portable- devel-slowdebug , java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-fastdebug , java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs , java-11-openjdk-portable- static-libs-slowdebug , java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-fastdebug [x]: 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. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. on java arches [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define debug_package %{nil}, %define __os_install_post %{nil}, %define __brp_strip_static_archive %{nil}, %define is_release_build() %( if [ "%{?1}" == "%{debug_suffix_unquoted}" -o "%{?1}" == "%{fastdebug_suffix_unquoted}" ]; then echo "0" ; else echo "1"; fi ), %define _lto_cflags %{nil}, %define buildoutputdir() %{expand:build/jdk%{featurever}.build%{?1}}, %define installoutputdir() %{expand:install/jdk%{featurever}.install%{?1}}, %define uniquejavadocdir() %{expand:%{fullversion}.%{_arch}%{?1}}, %define uniquesuffix() %{expand:%{fullversion}.%{_arch}%{?1}}, %define jreportablenameimpl() %(echo %{uniquesuffix ""} | sed "s;el7\\_([0-9]\\)*;portable%{1}.jre.;g" | sed "s;openjdkportable;el;g"), %define jdkportablenameimpl() %(echo %{uniquesuffix ""} | sed "s;el7\\_([0-9]\\)*;portable%{1}.jdk.;g" | sed "s;openjdkportable;el;g"), %define staticlibsportablenameimpl() %(echo %{uniquesuffix ""} | sed "s;el7\\_([0-9]\\)*;portable%{1}.static-libs.;g" | sed "s;openjdkportable;el;g"), %define jreportablenameimpl() %(echo %{uniquesuffix ""} | sed "s;fc\\([0-9]\\)*;\\0.portable%{1}.jre;g" | sed "s;openjdkportable;el;g"), %define jdkportablenameimpl() %(echo %{uniquesuffix ""} | sed "s;fc\\([0-9]\\)*;\\0.portable%{1}.jdk;g" | sed "s;openjdkportable;el;g"), %define staticlibsportablenameimpl() %(echo %{uniquesuffix ""} | sed "s;fc\\([0-9]\\)*;\\0.portable%{1}.static-libs;g" | sed "s;openjdkportable;el;g"), %define jreportablearchive() %{expand:%{jreportablenameimpl -- %%{1}}.tar.xz}, %define jdkportablearchive() %{expand:%{jdkportablenameimpl -- %%{1}}.tar.xz}, %define staticlibsportablearchive() %{expand:%{staticlibsportablenameimpl -- %%{1}}.tar.xz}, %define jreportablename() %{expand:%{jreportablenameimpl -- %%{1}}}, %define jdkportablename() %{expand:%{jdkportablenameimpl -- %%{1}}}, %define staticlibsportablename() %{expand:%{jdkportablenameimpl -- %%{1}}}, %define etcjavadir() %{expand:%{etcjavasubdir}/%{uniquesuffix -- %{?1}}}, %define sdkdir() %{expand:%{uniquesuffix -- %{?1}}}, %define jrelnk() %{expand:jre-%{javaver}-%{origin}-%{version}-%{release}.%{_arch}%{?1}}, %define sdkbindir() %{expand:%{_jvmdir}/%{sdkdir -- %{?1}}/bin}, %define jrebindir() %{expand:%{_jvmdir}/%{sdkdir -- %{?1}}/bin}, %define java_rpo() %{expand:, %define java_devel_rpo() %{expand:, %define java_static_libs_rpo() %{expand:, %define component %(echo %{name} | sed "s;-portable;;g") [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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.2.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.10/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 9 java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-slowdebug.x86_64: E: summary-too-long OpenJDK 11 Runtime and Development Environment portable edition unoptimised with full debugging on java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-slowdebug.x86_64: E: summary-too-long OpenJDK 11 libraries for static linking - portable edition unoptimised with full debugging on java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-fastdebug.x86_64: E: summary-too-long OpenJDK 11 libraries for static linking - portable edition optimised with full debugging on java-11-openjdk-portable-slowdebug.x86_64: E: summary-too-long OpenJDK 11 Runtime Environment portable edition unoptimised with full debugging on java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-fastdebug.x86_64: E: summary-too-long OpenJDK 11 Runtime and Development Environment portable edition optimised with full debugging on java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-slowdebug.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib java-11-openjdk-portable-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-slowdebug.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-fastdebug.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib java-11-openjdk-portable-slowdebug.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-fastdebug.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib java-11-openjdk-portable-fastdebug.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib java-11-openjdk-portable.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-slowdebug.x86_64: W: no-documentation java-11-openjdk-portable-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation java-11-openjdk-portable-slowdebug.x86_64: W: no-documentation java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-fastdebug.x86_64: W: no-documentation java-11-openjdk-portable-fastdebug.x86_64: W: no-documentation java-11-openjdk-portable.x86_64: W: no-documentation java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-slowdebug.x86_64: W: invalid-license-exception advertising java-11-openjdk-portable-devel.x86_64: W: invalid-license-exception advertising java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-slowdebug.x86_64: W: invalid-license-exception advertising java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-fastdebug.x86_64: W: invalid-license-exception advertising java-11-openjdk-portable-slowdebug.x86_64: W: invalid-license-exception advertising java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs.x86_64: W: invalid-license-exception advertising java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-fastdebug.x86_64: W: invalid-license-exception advertising java-11-openjdk-portable-fastdebug.x86_64: W: invalid-license-exception advertising java-11-openjdk-portable.x86_64: W: invalid-license-exception advertising java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-slowdebug.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package is unoptimised with full debugging. Install only as needed and remove ASAP. java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-slowdebug.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package is unoptimised with full debugging. Install only as needed and remove ASAP. java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-fastdebug.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package is optimised with full debugging. Install only as needed and remove ASAP. java-11-openjdk-portable-slowdebug.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package is unoptimised with full debugging. Install only as needed and remove ASAP. java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-fastdebug.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package is optimised with full debugging. Install only as needed and remove ASAP. java-11-openjdk-portable-fastdebug.x86_64: E: description-line-too-long This package is optimised with full debugging. Install only as needed and remove ASAP. 9 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 11 errors, 24 warnings, 11 badness; has taken 0.1 s Requires -------- java-11-openjdk-portable (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-11-openjdk-portable-slowdebug (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-11-openjdk-portable-fastdebug (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-11-openjdk-portable-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-slowdebug (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-fastdebug (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-slowdebug (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-fastdebug (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- java-11-openjdk-portable: bundled(freetype) bundled(giflib) bundled(harfbuzz) bundled(lcms2) bundled(libjpeg) bundled(libpng) java-11-openjdk-portable java-11-openjdk-portable(x86-64) java-11-openjdk-portable-slowdebug: java-11-openjdk-portable-slowdebug java-11-openjdk-portable-slowdebug(x86-64) java-11-openjdk-portable-fastdebug: java-11-openjdk-portable-fastdebug java-11-openjdk-portable-fastdebug(x86-64) java-11-openjdk-portable-devel: java-11-openjdk-portable-devel java-11-openjdk-portable-devel(x86-64) java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-slowdebug: java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-slowdebug java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-slowdebug(x86-64) java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-fastdebug: java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-fastdebug java-11-openjdk-portable-devel-fastdebug(x86-64) java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs: java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs(x86-64) java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-slowdebug: java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-slowdebug java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-slowdebug(x86-64) java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-fastdebug: java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-fastdebug java-11-openjdk-portable-static-libs-fastdebug(x86-64) Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2139799 -m fedora-36-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-36-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, C/C++, Generic Disabled plugins: R, Python, SugarActivity, PHP, Haskell, Ocaml, fonts, Perl, Java 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2139799 _______________________________________________ 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, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
