https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023 Didik Supriadi <didiksupriadi41@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value CC| |didiksupriadi41@xxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |didiksupriadi41@xxxxxxxxx Whiteboard| |Unretirement Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Didik Supriadi <didiksupriadi41@xxxxxxxxx> --- > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > > Issues: > ======= > - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java > to get additional checks > - Package does not use a name that already exists. > Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check > https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/apache-commons-vfs > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names this review is unretirement. > - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build > Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) > See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- > guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies there are bundled jar, but they're not packaged. > > > ===== 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-2.0", "Unknown or generated". 116 files > have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in > /home/fedora/didiksupriadi41/2222023-apache-commons- > vfs/licensecheck.txt > [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. > [?]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ant.d I'm not sure about this one. /etc/ant.d is currently owned by ant. > [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. > [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. > [!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified. > Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs Do you think it would be appropriate to use '%config(noreplace)' in this context? (I'm not entirely sure in my own judgment) > [!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. > Note: Macros in: apache-commons-vfs (description) the warning is shown below. moving %javadoc_package macro to a position immediately preceding %prep should fix it. > [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. > [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package > [-]: 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. > [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size > (~1MB) or number of files. > Note: Documentation size is 71680 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 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]: 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 > > ===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. > Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in apache- > commons-vfs-examples , apache-commons-vfs-project > [?]: 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. > [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. > [-]: 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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream > publishes signatures. > [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported > architectures. > [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: apache-commons-vfs-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm > apache-commons-vfs-ant-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm > apache-commons-vfs-examples-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm > apache-commons-vfs-project-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm > apache-commons-vfs-2.9.0-1.fc39.src.rpm > =========================================================================== rpmlint session starts =========================================================================== > rpmlint: 2.4.0 > configuration: > /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpkn_8sdia')] > checks: 31, packages: 5 > > apache-commons-vfs.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %javadoc_package > apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: no-documentation > apache-commons-vfs-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation > apache-commons-vfs-project.noarch: W: no-documentation > apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs > ============================================ 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s ============================================ > > > > > Rpmlint (installed packages) > ---------------------------- > ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ > rpmlint: 2.4.0 > configuration: > /usr/lib/python3.12/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: 4 > > apache-commons-vfs-project.noarch: W: no-documentation > apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: no-documentation > apache-commons-vfs-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation > apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs > 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s > > > > Source checksums > ---------------- > https://downloads.apache.org/commons/KEYS : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 4230519a17c7106b4e18cf199dc7224302ac7a225d3a86963d253dd92b8fc638 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 4230519a17c7106b4e18cf199dc7224302ac7a225d3a86963d253dd92b8fc638 > https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/source/commons-vfs-2.9.0-src.tar.gz.asc : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : f627c999b2d580db3dbf7305a94ae04f7a3467c33a40a284048157d6ecf69011 > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : f627c999b2d580db3dbf7305a94ae04f7a3467c33a40a284048157d6ecf69011 > https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/source/commons-vfs-2.9.0-src.tar.gz : > CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3ffa6826aba58316cdee0b89eac67300f14ddea13669fdf72ee6f858b880000f > CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ffa6826aba58316cdee0b89eac67300f14ddea13669fdf72ee6f858b880000f > > > Requires > -------- > apache-commons-vfs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless) > javapackages-filesystem > mvn(commons-logging:commons-logging) > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3) > > apache-commons-vfs-ant (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > apache-commons-vfs > config(apache-commons-vfs-ant) > > apache-commons-vfs-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless) > javapackages-filesystem > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2) > mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient) > > apache-commons-vfs-project (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): > (java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless) > javapackages-filesystem > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-parent:pom:) > mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin) > mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin) > > > > Provides > -------- > apache-commons-vfs: > apache-commons-vfs > apache-commons-vfs2 > mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs) > mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs:pom:) > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs) > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2) > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2:pom:) > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs:pom:) > osgi(org.apache.commons.vfs2) > > apache-commons-vfs-ant: > apache-commons-vfs-ant > config(apache-commons-vfs-ant) > > apache-commons-vfs-examples: > apache-commons-vfs-examples > mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs-examples) > mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs-examples:pom:) > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs-examples) > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs-examples:pom:) > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-examples) > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-examples:pom:) > osgi(org.apache.commons.vfs2) > > apache-commons-vfs-project: > apache-commons-vfs-project > mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-project:pom:) > > > > Jar and class files in source > ----------------------------- > ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar > ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar > ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar > ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar > ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar > ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar > ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar > ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar > ./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar > > > Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23 > Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2222023 > Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 > Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Java > Disabled plugins: R, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity > 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=2222023 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202222023%23c2 _______________________________________________ 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
