https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1323186
--- Comment #12 from robert.am...@intel.com ---
(In reply to Neil Horman from comment #6)
>
> This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
> also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
> - Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
> a list, create one.
> - Add your own remarks to the template checks.
> - Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
> listed by fedora-review.
> - Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
> case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
> - Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
> in what you paste.
> - Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
> ones are mandatory, though)
> - Remove this text
>
>
>
> Package Review
> ==============
>
> Legend:
> [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
> [ ] = Manual review needed
>
>
> Issues:
> =======
> - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java
> to get additional checks
>
>
> ===== 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.
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
> Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
> found: "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
> address)", "Unknown or generated". 50 files have unknown license.
> Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/1323186-opa-
> fmgui/licensecheck.txt
> <NH>
> Package includes License files
> Third_Party_Copyright_Notices_and_Licenses.docx
> and THIRD-PARTY-README which seem to relate to code which is not packaged in
> this srpm. If that is the case, then these files should not be packaged.
> If it
> is the case, then the license needs to change in the spec file, the docx
> files
> needs to be converted to text and the binaries need to have thier licensing
> ennumerated.
>
> [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
> Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java,
> /etc/xdg/menus, /etc/profile.d, /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged
> [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
> Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/icons/hicolor
> (hicolor-icon-theme, fedora-logos)
> [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/xdg/menus/applications-
> merged/Fabric.menu %config /etc/profile.d/fmguivars.sh
> <NH>
> See rpmlint below
> [-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
> [!]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
> You put documents in the App folder, but they are not marked as such, if they
> need to be included at all (THIRD PARTY docs mentioned above)
>
> [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
> names).
> [!]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> <NH>
> Package should likely be named fmgui to correspond to fmgui.jar file
>
> [x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
> [s]: 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]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked in %postun and %posttrans if package
> contains icons.
> Note: icons in opa-fmgui
> [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
> [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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
> that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
> [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]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
> [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install or
> desktop-file-validate if there is such a file.
> [x]: Dist tag is present.
> [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
> [x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
> [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 does not use a name that already exists.
> [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
> (~1MB) or number of files.
> Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
> [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
>
> Java:
> [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
>
> ===== SHOULD items =====
>
> Generic:
> [x]: 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.
> <NH>
> Attempted to run fmgui against openjdk 1.8 and it seems to fail indicating
> that
> java was not at a sufficient vm level
>
> [x]: Latest version is packaged.
> [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
> [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
> Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
> [-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
> translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
> [-]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
> architectures.
> [-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
> [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
> files.
> [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
> [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]: SourceX is a working URL.
> [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: opa-fmgui-10.0.0.0.3-1.fc25.noarch.rpm
> opa-fmgui-10.0.0.0.3-1.fc25.src.rpm
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: invalid-url URL www.intel.com
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
> /etc/profile.d/fmguivars.sh
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
> /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged/Fabric.menu
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: no-documentation
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmgui
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/fmgui/fmgui.jar
> opa-fmgui.src: W: invalid-url URL www.intel.com
> opa-fmgui.src: W: invalid-url Source0: opa-fmgui-10.0.0.0.3.tar.gz
> 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
>
>
>
>
> Rpmlint (installed packages)
> ----------------------------
> sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: invalid-url URL www.intel.com
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
> /etc/xdg/menus/applications-merged/Fabric.menu
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag
> /etc/profile.d/fmguivars.sh
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: no-documentation
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary fmgui
> opa-fmgui.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/fmgui/fmgui.jar
> 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
>
>
>
> Requires
> --------
> opa-fmgui (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
> /bin/bash
> /bin/sh
> config(opa-fmgui)
> jre
>
>
>
> Provides
> --------
> opa-fmgui:
> application()
> application(fmgui.desktop)
> config(opa-fmgui)
> opa-fmgui
>
>
>
> Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20
> Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1323186
> Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
> Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
> Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell,
> R, PHP, Ruby
> Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Neil,
I need clarification on your comment below:
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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "LGPL (v2 or later) (with incorrect FSF
address)", "Unknown or generated". 50 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/nhorman/1323186-opa-
fmgui/licensecheck.txt
<NH>
Package includes License files Third_Party_Copyright_Notices_and_Licenses.docx
and THIRD-PARTY-README which seem to relate to code which is not packaged in
this srpm. If that is the case, then these files should not be packaged. If
it is the case, then the license needs to change in the spec file, the docx
files needs to be converted to text and the binaries need to have thier
licensing ennumerated.
Do I need to include a separate text file containing licensing information for
each third-party jar used by opa-fmgui? If so, is it correct to place all of
them in a documentation folder that resides in the installation directory?
Regards,
Robert
--
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
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
