https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
Didik Supriadi <didiksupriadi41(a)gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doc Type|--- |If docs needed, set a value
CC| |didiksupriadi41(a)gmail.com
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |didiksupriadi41(a)gmail.com
Whiteboard| |Unretirement
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Didik Supriadi <didiksupriadi41(a)gmail.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
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://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/apache-commons-vfs
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
this review is unretirement.
- Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Jar files in source (see attachment)
See:
https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies
there are bundled jar, but they're not packaged.
===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache-2.0", "Unknown or generated". 116
files
have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/fedora/didiksupriadi41/2222023-apache-commons-
vfs/licensecheck.txt
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[?]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /etc/ant.d
I'm not sure about this one. /etc/ant.d is currently owned by ant.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: %config files are marked noreplace or the reason is justified.
Note: No (noreplace) in %config /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs
Do you think it would be appropriate to use '%config(noreplace)' in this
context?
(I'm not entirely sure in my own judgment)
[!]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
Note: Macros in: apache-commons-vfs (description)
the warning is shown below.
moving %javadoc_package macro to a position immediately preceding %prep should
fix it.
[-]: 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.
[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 71680 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]: 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 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]: No %config files under /usr.
[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
===== 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in apache-
commons-vfs-examples , apache-commons-vfs-project
[?]: 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.
[-]: %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]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream
publishes signatures.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[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: apache-commons-vfs-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
apache-commons-vfs-ant-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
apache-commons-vfs-examples-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
apache-commons-vfs-project-2.9.0-1.fc39.noarch.rpm
apache-commons-vfs-2.9.0-1.fc39.src.rpm
=========================================================================== rpmlint
session starts
===========================================================================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpkn_8sdia')]
checks: 31, packages: 5
apache-commons-vfs.src: W: unexpanded-macro %description -l C %javadoc_package
apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: no-documentation
apache-commons-vfs-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation
apache-commons-vfs-project.noarch: W: no-documentation
apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs
============================================ 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0
errors, 5 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.4 s
============================================
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
============================ rpmlint session starts ============================
rpmlint: 2.4.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.12/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml
/etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml
checks: 31, packages: 4
apache-commons-vfs-project.noarch: W: no-documentation
apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: no-documentation
apache-commons-vfs-examples.noarch: W: no-documentation
apache-commons-vfs-ant.noarch: W: conffile-without-noreplace-flag /etc/ant.d/commons-vfs
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://downloads.apache.org/commons/KEYS :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
4230519a17c7106b4e18cf199dc7224302ac7a225d3a86963d253dd92b8fc638
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
4230519a17c7106b4e18cf199dc7224302ac7a225d3a86963d253dd92b8fc638
https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/source/commons-vfs-2.9.0-src.... :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
f627c999b2d580db3dbf7305a94ae04f7a3467c33a40a284048157d6ecf69011
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f627c999b2d580db3dbf7305a94ae04f7a3467c33a40a284048157d6ecf69011
https://archive.apache.org/dist/commons/vfs/source/commons-vfs-2.9.0-src.... :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
3ffa6826aba58316cdee0b89eac67300f14ddea13669fdf72ee6f858b880000f
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
3ffa6826aba58316cdee0b89eac67300f14ddea13669fdf72ee6f858b880000f
Requires
--------
apache-commons-vfs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
(java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless)
javapackages-filesystem
mvn(commons-logging:commons-logging)
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-lang3)
apache-commons-vfs-ant (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
apache-commons-vfs
config(apache-commons-vfs-ant)
apache-commons-vfs-examples (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
(java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless)
javapackages-filesystem
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2)
mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient)
apache-commons-vfs-project (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
(java-headless or java-17-headless or java-11-headless or java-1.8.0-headless)
javapackages-filesystem
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-parent:pom:)
mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-antrun-plugin)
mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-surefire-plugin)
Provides
--------
apache-commons-vfs:
apache-commons-vfs
apache-commons-vfs2
mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs)
mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs:pom:)
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs)
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2)
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2:pom:)
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs:pom:)
osgi(org.apache.commons.vfs2)
apache-commons-vfs-ant:
apache-commons-vfs-ant
config(apache-commons-vfs-ant)
apache-commons-vfs-examples:
apache-commons-vfs-examples
mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs-examples)
mvn(commons-vfs:commons-vfs-examples:pom:)
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs-examples)
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs-examples:pom:)
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-examples)
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-examples:pom:)
osgi(org.apache.commons.vfs2)
apache-commons-vfs-project:
apache-commons-vfs-project
mvn(org.apache.commons:commons-vfs2-project:pom:)
Jar and class files in source
-----------------------------
./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar
./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar
./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit1/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar
./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar
./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar
./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2-jackrabbit2/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar
./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/nested.jar
./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/test.jar
./commons-vfs-2.9.0/commons-vfs2/src/test/resources/test-data/read-tests/dir1/subdir4.jar
Generated by fedora-review 0.9.0 (6761b6c) last change: 2022-08-23
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2222023
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Java
Disabled plugins: R, PHP, fonts, Ocaml, C/C++, Perl, Haskell, Python, SugarActivity
Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH
--
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
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2222023
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=rep...