Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=961387
gil cattaneo <punto...@libero.it> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flags|fedora-review? |
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo <punto...@libero.it> ---
Manual review.
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
IGNORE
- Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: No add_maven_depmap calls found but pom files present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro
IGNORE
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
Note: No javadoc subpackage present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
IGNORE
===== 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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[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 requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"MIT/X11 (BSD like)". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/gil/961387-akuma/review-akuma/licensecheck.txt
[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.
[-]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[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 does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[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 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 installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Java:
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Maven:
[ ]: 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:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[!]: 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.
[x]: 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]: 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.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
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: akuma-1.9-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
akuma.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Embeddable -> Embedded
akuma.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) daemonization -> demonetization,
democratization, modernization
akuma.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US daemonization ->
demonetization, democratization, modernization
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint akuma
akuma.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Embeddable -> Embedded
akuma.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) daemonization -> demonetization,
democratization, modernization
akuma.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US daemonization ->
demonetization, democratization, modernization
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
akuma (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java
jpackage-utils
mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna)
Provides
--------
akuma:
akuma
mvn(org.kohsuke:akuma)
MD5-sum check
-------------
https://github.com/kohsuke/akuma/archive/akuma-1.9.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
14e7b0373464adb876d263d86fee5c3a5552f68d2a2d2431ab10c766c3d42f95
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
14e7b0373464adb876d263d86fee5c3a5552f68d2a2d2431ab10c766c3d42f95
https://raw.github.com/kohsuke/youdebug/youdebug-1.5/LICENSE.txt :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
900759c2f29f1270c67769b091992609351816ff5faf7e0e0d87bd8786319835
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
900759c2f29f1270c67769b091992609351816ff5faf7e0e0d87bd8786319835
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29
Buildroot used: fedora-18-i386
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -vpn akuma
approved
--
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=UzNVTvWtKh&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
