https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1318988
--- Comment #30 from Severin Gehwolf <sgehw...@redhat.com> ---
[!] Changelog is not in prescribed format:
java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32.armv7hl: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog
1:1.8.0.xx-1.bb ['1:1.8.0.76-1.160415.fc24', '1:1.8.0.76-1.160415']
Use "1:1.8.0.76-1.160415" rather "than 1:1.8.0.xx-1.bb"
[!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Used the following command to generate the source tarball locally:
$ PROJECT_NAME=aarch32-port VERSION=jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415
REPO_NAME=jdk8u \
bash ../generate_source_tarball.sh
where "generate_source_tarball.sh" is as in the main java-1.8.0-openjdk
dist-git repo.
$ md5sum aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
f4e5fa08100e18a8ed74180bcb98aea2
aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
From the SRPM:
$ md5sum
srpm-unpacked/aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
73127e42f6536fd0c10b0237ac0ee808
srpm-unpacked/aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
Perhaps I'm doing something wrong?
[!] Mixed use of tabs and spaces in spec:
srpm/java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32.spec:634: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
(spaces: line 8, tab: line 634)
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
===== 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]: 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.
[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses.
It mentions GPL v2 + Classpath Exception. I did not check if others are
still relevant.
[?]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
Bundled LCMS libs are being used. This is a known work-around.
[!]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[?]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[-]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
I would name it 0.1.<DATE> rather than 1.<DATE>, but OK.
[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.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Builds fine on armv7hl (only arch this targets).
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
I've run rpmlint on the spec. It would be good to run them on rpms too.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[!]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
Used the following command to generate the source tarball locally:
$ PROJECT_NAME=aarch32-port VERSION=jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415
REPO_NAME=jdk8u \
bash ../generate_source_tarball.sh
where "generate_source_tarball.sh" is as in the main java-1.8.0-openjdk
dist-git repo.
$ md5sum aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
f4e5fa08100e18a8ed74180bcb98aea2
aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
From the SRPM:
$ md5sum
srpm-unpacked/aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
73127e42f6536fd0c10b0237ac0ee808
srpm-unpacked/aarch32-port-jdk8u-jdk8u76-b00-aarch32-160415.tar.xz
[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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[-]: 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
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Javadocs for the JDK are in:
/usr/share/javadoc/java-1.8.0-openjdk-aarch32-1.8.0.76-1.160415.fc24
This is OK since it's a JDK, not a Java app.
Maven:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[-]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[-]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[-]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[-]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[-]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[-]: Packages use .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== 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
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
Note: Packager promises to update as appropriate from latest HEAD
upstream.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
OK. Though, a bit hard to find.
[-]: 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.
Note: ExclusiveArch: %{arm}
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[-]: 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)
[?]: 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.
Java:
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[-]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
Note: This package is a full JDK specifically for ARM 32.
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Ran it on most packages, not all.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
--
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
