Attachment 815004 Details for Bug 1016767 – review fail

review fail

review.txt (text/plain), 7.99 KB, created by Pete MacKinnon on 2013-10-22 13:34:18 UTC

(hide)

Description:

Filename:

MIME Type:

Creator: Pete MacKinnon

Created: 2013-10-22 13:34:18 UTC

Size: 7.99 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". 9 files have unknown license.
>     Detailed output of licensecheck in
>     /home/pmackinn/rpmbuild/SPECS/1016767-htrace/licensecheck.txt
>[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
>[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
>     Note: No known owner of /usr/share/java/htrace
>[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
>     Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/htrace
>[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.
>[-]: 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 20480 bytes in 1 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: No rpmlint messages.
>[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 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 htrace-
>     javadoc
>[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.
>[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]: 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 tarball generation or download is documented.
>[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: htrace-2.03-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
>          htrace-javadoc-2.03-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
>          htrace-2.03-1.fc21.src.rpm
>3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
>
>
>
>
>Rpmlint (installed packages)
>----------------------------
># rpmlint htrace-javadoc htrace
>2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
># echo 'rpmlint-done:'
>
>
>
>Requires
>--------
>htrace-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    jpackage-utils
>
>htrace (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
>    jpackage-utils
>    mvn(com.google.guava:guava)
>    mvn(commons-codec:commons-codec)
>    mvn(commons-logging:commons-logging)
>    mvn(org.apache.thrift:libthrift)
>    mvn(org.cloudera.htrace:htrace-core)
>    mvn(org.eclipse.jetty:jetty-util-ajax)
>
>
>
>Provides
>--------
>htrace-javadoc:
>    htrace-javadoc
>
>htrace:
>    htrace
>    mvn(org.cloudera.htrace:htrace)
>    mvn(org.cloudera.htrace:htrace-core)
>    mvn(org.cloudera.htrace:htrace-zipkin)
>    mvn(org.cloudera.htrace:htrace:pom:)
>
>
>
>Source checksums
>----------------
>https://github.com/cloudera/htrace/archive/7e8fe1aa4983469f46cbbc5e6dd8e31753ba85f0/htrace-2.03-7e8fe1a.tar.gz :
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9ebfa227000f18d845fd7954eebf84e6bd20dbaf60e22e7a8081e8903dac6c5f
>  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9ebfa227000f18d845fd7954eebf84e6bd20dbaf60e22e7a8081e8903dac6c5f
>
>
>Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30
>Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1016767 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
>Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
>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 1016767: 815004 | 817190