https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217892 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #6 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - 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. Note: License file LICENSE-2.0.txt is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text The problem is that the license files are marked as %doc instead of %license. - Also, since there are multiple licenses listed, there must be some kind of description of what the various licenses apply to. In the simple case of 2 licenses, a comment above the License field is sufficient. - Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) Note: javapackages-tools requires are automatically generated by the buildsystem See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java If you want to make things simpler, use the %{javadoc_package} macro, defined in /usr/lib/rpm/macros.d/macros.fjava. - The License field is not valid SPDX. It should probably read: Apache-2.0 AND Apache-1.1. See https://spdx.org/licenses/ for valid license names and information about license expression syntax. - Note this warning from rpmbuild: warning: %patchN is deprecated (2 usages found), use %patch N (or %patch -P N) I recommend making both patches apply with -p1, then replacing the first 3 lines of %prep with this: %autosetup -p1 - The build log has a number of warnings of this form: [javac] /builddir/build/BUILD/ant-contrib/src/java/net/sf/antcontrib/logic/ForTask.java:87: warning: [removal] Integer(int) in Integer has been deprecated and marked for removal [javac] this.threadCount = new Integer(threadCount); [javac] ^ That could be "this.threadCount = Integer.valueOf(threadCount);", for example. You will have to deal with this someday when the constructor is removed entirely. (You don't necessarily have to deal with it now.) - Note the non-conffile-in-etc warning from rpmlint below. Should %{_sysconfdir}/ant.d/ant-contrib have the %config(noreplace) marker? - (Nitpick) Lines of this form in %prep: find -name '*.class' -exec rm -f '{}' \; Should instead be written like this: find -name '*.class' -delete which avoids a check-then-act race. - (Nitpick) Add "-p" to the cp command in %prep, to preserve the timestamp. - (Nitpick) In your changelog entry, change "deprecaded" to "deprecated". ===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 1.1", "Apache License 2.0". 128 files have unknown license. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. It is not documented. [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. [-]: 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 276480 bytes in 48 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]: 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 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) 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]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Maven: [-]: 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 ===== 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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. The text of Apache-2.0 is included as a separate file. [!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. Patches are not linked, described, or justified. [-]: 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. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. There are tests, but they are not run [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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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: ant-contrib-1.0-0.42.b3.fc38.noarch.rpm ant-contrib-javadoc-1.0-0.42.b3.fc38.noarch.rpm ant-contrib-1.0-0.42.b3.fc38.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/tmpvslx_j5d')] checks: 31, packages: 3 ant-contrib.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 53% ant-contrib-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 100% ant-contrib.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ant.d/ant-contrib ================= 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.2 s ================= Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ 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 checks: 31, packages: 2 ant-contrib.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 53% ant-contrib-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 100% ant-contrib.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ant.d/ant-contrib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 https://downloads.sourceforge.net/project/ant-contrib/ant-contrib/1.0b3/ant-contrib-1.0b3-src.tar.bz2 : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5c180feaca2704d914054a1e6b453673cc9b65cfb3da307aff17439a9aa09d6b CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5c180feaca2704d914054a1e6b453673cc9b65cfb3da307aff17439a9aa09d6b Requires -------- ant-contrib (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless) ant java-headless javapackages-filesystem junit xerces-j2 ant-contrib-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem jpackage-utils Provides -------- ant-contrib: ant-contrib mvn(ant-contrib:ant-contrib) mvn(ant-contrib:ant-contrib:xml:) mvn(sourceforge:ant-contrib) mvn(sourceforge:ant-contrib:xml:) ant-contrib-javadoc: ant-contrib-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2217892 -m fedora-38-x86_64 Buildroot used: fedora-38-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: Ruby, Haskell, SugarActivity, PHP, fonts, R, Perl, Ocaml, Python, 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 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2217892 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202217892%23c6 _______________________________________________ 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
