Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877403
--- Comment #26 from Brendan Jones <brendan.jones.it(a)gmail.com> ---
For the license concerns reported by @Stanislav I added a ASL 2.0
license
inside SRPM
Personally, I would rather include a script file for cleaning the source,
rather than adding an extra license file for an unused jar file in the SRPM,
but that's a matter of personal preference.
Full review below. All fedora-review detected issues can be ignored:
The requires warning is due to fedora-review not handling the %{?is_a} macro.
Being noarch, you could lose the %{?is_a} macro but it doesn't hurt.
Other MUST issues:
- exit 1 in %prep when unxepected jars or class files found (as per Stanislav'
comment)
- You only need to install the license file once if the sub-package requires
the base-package where it is present.
- A simply comment explaining the license breakdown
- Your commented link to the maven pom is wrong. IF you haven't edited the pm
file there's no reason why you can't just use the direct link for Source1:
Source1
http://search.maven.org/remotecontent?filepath=org/tmatesoft/%{name}/%{na...
Should:
- remove bindir comment in %files section
Address the must issues and I'll approve the review
Package Review
==============
Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[x] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package cli, %package javahl
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage
[!]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
[!]: Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/svnkit
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Pac...
[!]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.2F_Othe...
===== 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]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
javadoc, %package cli, %package javahl
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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 %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown
license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-
svnkit/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
*** dont need to specify the license multiple times when requiring the
main package
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[!]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[!]: Package do not use a name that already exist
Note: A package already exist with this name, please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/svnkit
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]: Package installs properly.
Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[-]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 61440 bytes in 6 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[!]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
Note: Missing: 'Requires: %%{name} =' in: %package cli, %package javahl
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[!]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
[!]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[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)
[-]: 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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[-]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[!]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
Note: Source3 (LICENSE-2.0.txt) Source0 (org.tmatesoft.svn_1.7.6.src.zip)
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.
Java:
[x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: Mock build failed
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Installation errors
-------------------
INFO: mock.py version 1.1.28 starting...
Start: init plugins
INFO: selinux disabled
Finish: init plugins
Start: run
Mock Version: 1.1.28
INFO: Mock Version: 1.1.28
Start: lock buildroot
INFO: installing package(s):
/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-javadoc-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
ERROR: Command failed:
# ['/usr/bin/yum', '--installroot',
'/var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-x86_64/root/', 'install',
'/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm',
'/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-javadoc-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm',
'/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm',
'/home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-svnkit/results/svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm']
Error: Package: svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch
(/svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch)
Requires: svnkit(x86-64) = 1.7.6-3.fc19
You could try using --skip-broken to work around the problem
Error: Package: svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch
(/svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch)
Requires: svnkit(x86-64) = 1.7.6-3.fc19
You could try running: rpm -Va --nofiles --nodigest
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
svnkit-javadoc-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.src.rpm
svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm
svnkit-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Jsvn -> Sven
svnkit-cli.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jsvn -> Sven
svnkit.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
svnkit.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{name}
svnkit.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
svnkit.src:11: W: macro-in-comment %{version}
svnkit.src:129: W: macro-in-comment %{_bindir}
svnkit-javahl.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US tigris -> Tigris
5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
Jar and class files in source
-----------------------------
./svnkit-1.7.6/svnkit/src/main/java/org/tmatesoft/svn/core/io/repository/template.jar
./svnkit-1.7.6/svnkit/src/main/resources/org/tmatesoft/svn/core/io/repository/template.jar
Requires
--------
svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
svnkit(x86-64) = 1.7.6-3.fc19
svnkit-javadoc-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jpackage-utils
svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jna >= 3.0
jpackage-utils
jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6
sequence-library
sqljet >= 1.1.4
subversion-javahl >= 1.5
tomcat-servlet-3.0-api >= 7.0.0
trilead-ssh2 >= 213
svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
subversion-javahl >= 1.5
svnkit(x86-64) = 1.7.6-3.fc19
Provides
--------
svnkit-cli-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm:
svnkit-cli = 1.7.6-3.fc19
svnkit-javadoc-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm:
svnkit-javadoc = 1.7.6-3.fc19
svnkit-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm:
mvn(org.tmatesoft.svnkit:svnkit) = 1.7.6
svnkit = 1.7.6-3.fc19
svnkit-javahl-1.7.6-3.fc19.noarch.rpm:
svnkit-javahl = 1.7.6-3.fc19
MD5-sum check
-------------
http://www.svnkit.com/org.tmatesoft.svn_1.7.6.src.zip :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
55aa1f530cd3675e5dc4435a869787f4f33466c9c221cccedc822bb071647ae0
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
55aa1f530cd3675e5dc4435a869787f4f33466c9c221cccedc822bb071647ae0
Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -n svnkit
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=hTw2esLhFB&a=cc_unsubscribe