https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1249543
Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Zbigniew Jędrzejewski-Szmek <zbys...@in.waw.pl> ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4)
> Thanks for your help!
:)
> if for you is the same, i would have more interest, for now,
> to try to review the dependencies listed here:
> https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1363923
Oh, man. I've had enough for today I think, but I'll try to find some time.
Don't know when though, I'll be travelling for the next few weeks.
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
===== 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.
EPL.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "BSD (3 clause)", "EPL-1.0", "Unknown or generated". 12 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/var/tmp/1249543-eclipse-paho-mqtt-java/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/eclipse/droplets,
/usr/share/eclipse
→ add Requires: eclipse-filesystem
[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 consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
The name is a bit crazy, but it matches upstream ;)
[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.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[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.
[x]: 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.
[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
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: 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)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO 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 .mfiles file list 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).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in eclipse-
paho-mqtt-java-tests , eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-javadoc
Not needed.
[x]: 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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
Tests disabled.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
===== 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: eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-1.0.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests-1.0.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-javadoc-1.0.2-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-1.0.2-1.fc26.src.rpm
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://eclipse.org/paho/clients/java/ <urlopen error _ssl.c:629: The handshake
operation timed out>
Works fine in firefox.
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires
--------
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java-headless
javapackages-tools
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
javapackages-tools
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java-headless
javapackages-tools
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3)
Provides
--------
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java:
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:java-parent:pom:)
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.eclipse.feature)
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.eclipse.view)
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3)
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.mqtt.utility)
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.mqtt.utility:pom:)
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.ui.core)
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.ui.plugin:pom:)
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.ui:pom:)
osgi(org.eclipse.paho.client.eclipse.feature)
osgi(org.eclipse.paho.client.eclipse.view)
osgi(org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3)
osgi(org.eclipse.paho.ui.core)
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-javadoc:
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-javadoc
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests:
eclipse-paho-mqtt-java-tests
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3.test)
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3.test::test-sources:)
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3.test::tests:)
mvn(org.eclipse.paho:org.eclipse.paho.client.mqttv3.test:pom:)
All good. Should add depenedency on eclipse-filesystem.
Package is APPROVED.
--
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
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
