https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=865890
Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsl...@redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags| |fedora-review+
--- Comment #9 from Douglas Schilling Landgraf <dougsl...@redhat.com> ---
Hi Gil,
Package manually reviewed, also used fedora-review tool.
[OK] MUST: rpmlint must be run on the source rpm and all binary rpms the build
produces. The output should be posted in the review.
Checking: concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru-1.3.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru-javadoc-1.3.2-1.fc18.noarch.rpm
concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
util -> til, until, u til
concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
LinkedHashMap
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru-javadoc concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru
concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
util -> til, until, u til
concurrentlinkedhashmap-lru.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
LinkedHashMap
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
All above can be ignored.
[OK] MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines
[OK] MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the
format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption
[OK] MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
[OK] MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet
the Licensing Guidelines
[OK] MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
license.
[OK] MUST: The spec file must be written in American English
[OK] MUST: The spec file for the package MUST be legible
[OK] MUST: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries
[OK] MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not
create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does
create that directory. [13]
[OK] MUST: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec
file's %files listings. (Notable exception: license texts in specific
situations)[14]
[OK] MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set
with executable permissions, for example. [15]
[OK] MUST: Each package must consistently use macros. [16]
[OK] MUST: The package must contain code, or permissable content
[OK]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[OK]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[OK]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[OK]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[OK]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[OK]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[OK]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[OK]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[OK]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[OK]: Package is not relocatable.
[OK]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[OK]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[OK]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[OK]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[OK]: Package installs properly.
[OK]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
Java:
===========
[OK]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
pulled in by maven-local
[OK]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[OK]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[OK]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[OK]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[OK]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[OK]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
Maven:
============
[OK]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[OK]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[OK]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[OK]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
Should
===========
[OK]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
http://code.google.com/p/concurrentlinkedhashmap/issues/detail?id=38
[OK]: Package functions as described.
[OK]: Latest version is packaged.
[OK]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[OK]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[OK]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[OK]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[OK]: Buildroot is not present
[OK]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[OK]: Dist tag is present.
[OK]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[OK]: SourceX is a working URL.
[OK]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Final status: 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=ZghAE1VZFa&a=cc_unsubscribe
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
