https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1539134
Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CC| |zebo...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from Robert-André Mauchin <zebo...@gmail.com> ---
There's a few fedora-review errors but I don't know how pertinent they are
regarding EPEL6 packaging, you're using old macros instead of
%mvn_artifact/%mvn_install because they don't exist in EPEL6?
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- POM files have correct Maven mapping
Note: Old style Maven package found, no add_maven_depmap calls found but
POM files present
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Maven_pom.xml_files
- Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is being used
- Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
Note: jpackage-utils requires are automatically generated by the
buildsystem
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
===== 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]: 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)", "CC0", "*No copyright* Apache (v1.1)",
"Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 5580 files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/bob/packaging/review/bouncycastle1.58/review-
bouncycastle1.58/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven2/poms, /usr/share/maven2,
/etc/maven/fragments
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/maven,
/usr/share/maven2/poms, /etc/maven/fragments, /usr/share/maven2
[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.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 296960 bytes in 12 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 does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
[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]: 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]: 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
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[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]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used.
[-]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
bouncycastle1.58-pkix-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
bouncycastle1.58-pg-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
bouncycastle1.58-mail-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
bouncycastle1.58-tls-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
bouncycastle1.58-javadoc-1.58-1.el6.noarch.rpm
bouncycastle1.58-1.58-1.el6.src.rpm
bouncycastle1.58.noarch: E: zero-length
/etc/java/security/security.d/2158-org.bouncycastle.jce.provider.BouncyCastleProvider
7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 0 warnings.
--
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
To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
