https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1782942
Mat Booth <mat.booth(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #7 from Mat Booth <mat.booth(a)redhat.com> ---
Issues:
=======
- License file LICENSE is not marked as %license
- Typographical error in URL:
bitbucker.org ->
bitbucket.org
- Spelling error in description: whitespace -> white-space
If you fix these three minor problems, then this package is APPROVED
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
===== 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: There is no build directory. Running licensecheck on vanilla
upstream sources. No licenses found. Please check the source files for
licenses manually.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: 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.
[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 must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[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
===== 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
[-]: 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.
[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.
===== 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: decentxml-1.4-20.fc32.noarch.rpm
decentxml-javadoc-1.4-20.fc32.noarch.rpm
decentxml-1.4-20.fc32.src.rpm
decentxml.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white
space, white-space, whites pace
decentxml.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml
<urlopen error timed out>
decentxml-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-url URL:
https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml <urlopen error timed out>
decentxml.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US whitespace -> white
space, white-space, whites pace
decentxml.src: W: invalid-url URL:
https://bitbucker.org/digulla/decentxml
<urlopen error timed out>
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings.
Source checksums
----------------
http://www.w3.org/XML/Test/xmlts20031210.zip :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
4f03503040be97dc04eb2fd5c7a448d197e720f069a6c6f33eba1b2c2bb17706
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4f03503040be97dc04eb2fd5c7a448d197e720f069a6c6f33eba1b2c2bb17706
https://bitbucket.org/digulla/decentxml/get/r1.4.zip :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
f81e6965f4c7be613ec9159481a9ad55a9515a0c2ad679fdedd3d6e6f88cf191
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f81e6965f4c7be613ec9159481a9ad55a9515a0c2ad679fdedd3d6e6f88cf191
Requires
--------
decentxml (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java-headless
javapackages-filesystem
decentxml-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
javapackages-filesystem
Provides
--------
decentxml:
decentxml
mvn(de.pdark:decentxml)
mvn(de.pdark:decentxml:pom:)
decentxml-javadoc:
decentxml-javadoc
--
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