Attachment 803693 Details for Bug 1011696 – review notes

review notes

review.txt (text/plain), 7.36 KB, created by gil cattaneo on 2013-09-27 03:09:07 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: gil cattaneo

Created: 2013-09-27 03:09:07 UTC

Size: 7.36 KB

patch

obsolete

>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: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
>     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 8 files have unknown license.
>     Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1011696-jdo-
>     api/licensecheck.txt
>[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.
>[-]: 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 3 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 %doc.
>[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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
>[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]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
>     Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is
>     pulled in by maven-local
>[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
>     subpackage
>[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
>[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
>[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
>
>Maven:
>[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
>     when building with ant
>[x]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping
>[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
>[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]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
>[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
>
>===== 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).
>[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
>     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jdo-api-
>     javadoc
>[x]: Package functions as described.
>[x]: Latest version is packaged.
>[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
>[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
>     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
>[x]: 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.
>[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
>[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
>[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
>[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:
>[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
>[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
>
>===== EXTRA items =====
>
>Generic:
>[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
>     Note: No rpmlint messages.
>[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
>     arched.
>[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
>
>
>Rpmlint
>-------
>Checking: jdo-api-3.1-0.2.rc1.fc21.noarch.rpm
>          jdo-api-javadoc-3.1-0.2.rc1.fc21.noarch.rpm
>          jdo-api-3.1-0.2.rc1.fc21.src.rpm
>jdo-api.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jdo-api-3.1-rc1.tar.xz
>3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
># rpmlint jdo-api-javadoc jdo-api
>2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
># echo 'rpmlint-done:'
>
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>jdo-api-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    jpackage-utils
>
>jdo-api (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    jpackage-utils
>    mvn(javax.transaction:jta)
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>jdo-api-javadoc:
>    jdo-api-javadoc
>
>jdo-api:
>    jdo-api
>    mvn(javax.jdo:jdo-api)
>    mvn(org.apache.jdo:parent-pom)
>    mvn(org.apache.jdo:parent-pom:pom:)
>    mvn(org.apache:jdo)
>    mvn(org.apache:jdo:pom:)
>    osgi(javax.jdo)
>
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
>Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1011696 -m fedora-rawhide-i386
>Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
>Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
>Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby
>Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG

Actions: View

Attachments on bug 1011696: 803693