https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2188867 --- Comment #6 from Neil Hanlon <neil@xxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for your patience with my reviewing this package. All looks good to me! The below review is against fedora-rawhide, but I also validated this against EPEL9, as per the original ticket. With respect to Knownhost's comments, I would be willing to help comaintain this package in epel and fedora with you, rsc, as it is useful to me as well on Fedora and ELs. Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. NOTE: re-review for orphaned package ===== 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. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [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]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or desktop-file-validate if there is such a file. [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]: No %config files under /usr. [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 [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) [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]: POM files have correct Maven mapping [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in icedtea- web-devel [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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. NOTE: checks against built software not performed in check, but during build. [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]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI Note: icedtea-web subpackage is not noarch. Please verify manually [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1781760 bytes in /usr/share [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Package should not use obsolete m4 macros [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: icedtea-web-1.8.8-1.fc39.x86_64.rpm icedtea-web-javadoc-1.8.8-1.fc39.noarch.rpm icedtea-web-devel-1.8.8-1.fc39.noarch.rpm icedtea-web-1.8.8-1.fc39.src.rpm ================================================================================= rpmlint session starts ================================================================================= rpmlint: 2.4.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.11/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/neil/tmpw9fwuqgn')] checks: 31, packages: 4 icedtea-web.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/itweb-settings.itweb icedtea-web.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/javaws.itweb icedtea-web.x86_64: W: unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/bin/policyeditor.itweb icedtea-web-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 100% icedtea-web.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/itweb-settings 644 icedtea-web.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/javaws 644 icedtea-web.x86_64: W: non-executable-in-bin /usr/bin/policyeditor 644 icedtea-web.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary itweb-settings.itweb icedtea-web.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary itweb-settings.itweb.sh icedtea-web.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary javaws.itweb icedtea-web.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary javaws.itweb.sh icedtea-web.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary policyeditor.itweb icedtea-web.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary policyeditor.itweb.sh icedtea-web-devel.noarch: W: no-documentation icedtea-web-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/icedtea-web/netx/member-search-index.zip icedtea-web-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/icedtea-web/netx/package-search-index.zip icedtea-web-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/icedtea-web/netx/type-search-index.zip ================================================= 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 17 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 1.3 s ================================================== Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/AdoptOpenJDK/IcedTea-Web/archive/icedtea-web-1.8.8/icedtea-web-1.8.8.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f4203a605a3c9c50acdcc6eef4a366b9fdd36d95edcd76bcbfede01107cb5fe6 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f4203a605a3c9c50acdcc6eef4a366b9fdd36d95edcd76bcbfede01107cb5fe6 Requires -------- icedtea-web (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh /usr/bin/bash /usr/sbin/alternatives GConf2 config(icedtea-web) java-11-openjdk javapackages-tools ld-linux-x86-64.so.2()(64bit) libc.so.6()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.3)(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_4.2.0)(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) tagsoup icedtea-web-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): icedtea-web javapackages-filesystem icedtea-web-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): icedtea-web Provides -------- icedtea-web: application() application(itweb-settings.desktop) application(javaws.desktop) application(policyeditor.desktop) config(icedtea-web) icedtea-web icedtea-web(x86-64) javaws javaws(x86-64) metainfo() metainfo(icedtea-web-javaws.metainfo.xml) metainfo(icedtea-web.metainfo.xml) mimehandler(application/x-java-jnlp-file) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/jnlp) mimehandler(x-scheme-handler/jnlps) icedtea-web-javadoc: icedtea-web-javadoc icedtea-web-devel: icedtea-web-devel Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 2188867 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Java, Generic, Shell-api Disabled plugins: Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, R, fonts, C/C++, Python, Ocaml, PHP 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=2188867 _______________________________________________ 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
