https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1490454
Bug ID: 1490454
Summary: Review Request: leiningen - the easiest way to try
clojure (
http://leiningen.org)
Product: Fedora
Version: 26
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Assignee: nobody(a)fedoraproject.org
Reporter: med.hur(a)gmail.com
QA Contact: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org
CC: extras-qa(a)fedoraproject.org, nobody(a)fedoraproject.org,
package-review(a)lists.fedoraproject.org
+++ This bug was initially created as a clone of Bug #1487909 +++
Spec URL:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/fmind/fedora-leiningen/master/leiningen...
SRPM URL:
https://github.com/fmind/fedora-leiningenraw/master/leiningen-2.7.1-1.fc2...
Description: package for leiningen, a popular project management tool for
Clojure.
Fedora Account System Username: fmind
PS: this is the first time I create a Linux package
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java
to get additional checks
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/leiningen
See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Pac...
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "GPL (v3 or later)", "*No copyright* EPL (v1.0)",
"EPL (v1.0)",
"Unknown or generated", "EPL", "*No copyright* EPL",
"*No copyright*
Apache (v2.0)". 202 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /home/fmind/workspace/my/fedora/leiningen/review-
leiningen/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: 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 61440 bytes in 4 files.
[ ]: 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]: 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 %license.
[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]: 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 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.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: 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.
===== 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: leiningen-2.7.1-1.fc26.noarch.rpm
leiningen-2.7.1-1.fc26.src.rpm
leiningen.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/lein.1.gz
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory
leiningen.noarch: W: spurious-executable-perm /usr/share/man/man1/lein.1.gz
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Requires
--------
leiningen (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
/bin/bash
java-headless
Provides
--------
leiningen:
leiningen
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/archive/2.7.1.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
953c95c2656c46320c88dc683202030fdd9554e8390a4b4aaaba6d019088df6f
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
953c95c2656c46320c88dc683202030fdd9554e8390a4b4aaaba6d019088df6f
https://github.com/technomancy/leiningen/releases/download/2.7.1/leininge...
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
2ddc7e89bbb45cf1ca3d666a10dce0d3f154b77ad201aa58f430e84e71587c47
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
2ddc7e89bbb45cf1ca3d666a10dce0d3f154b77ad201aa58f430e84e71587c47
Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -n leiningen
Buildroot used: fedora-26-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP
Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
--
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