https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1084976
Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako(a)redhat.com> ---
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.
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd-
sdk(eclipse-emf-xsd-sdk), /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd/eclipse/plugins
(eclipse-emf-xsd), /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd/eclipse(eclipse-emf-
xsd), /usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd/eclipse/features(eclipse-emf-xsd),
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd-sdk/eclipse/features(eclipse-emf-xsd-sdk),
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd-sdk/eclipse(eclipse-emf-xsd-sdk),
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd(eclipse-emf-xsd),
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/xsd-sdk/eclipse/plugins(eclipse-emf-xsd-sdk)
[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.
[x]: 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 30720 bytes in 2 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]: 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]: 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 do not use a name that already exist
[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
Maven:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
===== 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 (see attachments).
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in eclipse-
xsd-examples
[x]: 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.
[-]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[x]: 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:
[-]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
Not applicable as upstream doesn't really have a build system. But work on
getting one from this package is ongoing.
[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-xsd-2.9.2-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
eclipse-xsd-sdk-2.9.2-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
eclipse-xsd-examples-2.9.2-2.fc20.noarch.rpm
eclipse-xsd-2.9.2-2.fc20.src.rpm
eclipse-xsd-sdk.noarch: W: no-documentation
eclipse-xsd-examples.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
Installable -> Install able, Install-able, Uninstallable
eclipse-xsd-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint eclipse-xsd-sdk eclipse-xsd eclipse-xsd-examples
eclipse-xsd-sdk.noarch: W: no-documentation
eclipse-xsd-examples.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US
Installable -> Install able, Install-able, Uninstallable
eclipse-xsd-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Not a problem - there is no suitable documentation for these subpackages and
Source checksums
----------------
http://git.eclipse.org/c/xsd/org.eclipse.xsd.git/snapshot/R2_9_2.tar.bz2 :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
c8ad4aa33d21f343b0ec8887ebfefb9d18f751773e3fbf637dacf67b18ba3ce5
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
c8ad4aa33d21f343b0ec8887ebfefb9d18f751773e3fbf637dacf67b18ba3ce5
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