Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=908168
--- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <socho...@redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
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 %doc.
- License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
Both binary packages have to include COPYING.txt from source tarball
- Spec use %global instead of %define.
Please prefer %global instead of %define there used to be some problems in the
past with incorrect %define use, so %global is preferred. That said, kudos for
coming up with mvnbuildRequires macro :-)
One more note: your files section could be simplified as such:
%files -f .mfiles
%doc README.txt COPYING.txt
I'd also change the summary to:
"An improved java.util.Properties from OpenJDK"
These should be fairly easy to fix, other than that package looks OK.
===== 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]: 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 is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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
[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).
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES 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 %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: 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.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
Java:
[x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[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.
[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: openprops-0.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
openprops-javadoc-0.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) util -> til, until, u til
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, until, u
til
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white
space, white-space, whites pace
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US storeToXml ->
storeroom
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hashCode -> hash
Code, hash-code, asphodel
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hashcode -> hash
code, hash-code, asphodel
openprops-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint openprops-javadoc openprops
openprops-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java
docs, Java-docs, Avocados
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) util -> til, until, u til
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, until, u
til
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white
space, white-space, whites pace
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US storeToXml ->
storeroom
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hashCode -> hash
Code, hash-code, asphodel
openprops.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US hashcode -> hash
code, hash-code, asphodel
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
openprops-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jpackage-utils
openprops (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java
jpackage-utils
Provides
--------
openprops-javadoc:
openprops-javadoc
openprops:
mvn(org.fedorahosted.openprops:openprops)
openprops
MD5-sum check
-------------
https://github.com/zanata/openprops/archive/openprops-0.6.zip :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
4522ddb4247a1c0a5fc8aa2079c26fce884a46ebea676a13ad17d0df4e5b4794
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4522ddb4247a1c0a5fc8aa2079c26fce884a46ebea676a13ad17d0df4e5b4794
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (0dec099) last change: 2013-02-08
Buildroot used: fedora-raw-x86_64
Command line :/home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/try-fedora-review -vb
908168
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=oUrVBGXQvC&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
