Bug 844479

Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated

==== Generic ====
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[x]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
     Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
     least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
     that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
[x]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
     $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
[x]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[!]: MUST 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. [1]
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [2]
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
     names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[x]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary. [3]
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
     provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
     %{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
     /usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
     --requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[-]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged. (N/A for compatibility packages
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
     upstream.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
     files.
[!]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define. [4]


==== Java ====
[x]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
     removed prior to building
[x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
     subpackage
     Note: No javadoc subpackage present
[x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
     symlink)
     Note: No javadoc subpackage present
[x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)


Notes / Issues:

[1] The license file should be included in the javadoc subpackage as well.

[2] The license is LGPL 2.1

[3] This package should require log4j and bsh.  Note that there are two ways to assess requirements:  First, look at the requirements in the pom.  Additionally, you can run the following:

unzip -p /usr/share/java/jgroups212.jar | /usr/lib/rpm/javadeps --requires -- -

which gives a list of all classes which are imported by some class in the jar.  There are many redundancies in this list, but if you grep out the org.jgroups, java.*, and javax.* deps, you get a much shorter list to research.

[4] Use %global rather than %define

Spec URL: http://madsa.fedorapeople.org/jgroups212.spec
SRPM URL: http://madsa.fedorapeople.org/jgroups212-2.12.3-2.fc17.src.rpm

Looks good.  One small thing: for LGPL 2.1, the "short name" used in the license field should be "LGPLv2", according to:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing#Software_License_List

I should have said that when I mentioned the license change.  Anyway, that's a minor thing, but please change it on commit.

APPROVED

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: jgroups212
Short Description: A toolkit for reliable multicast communication
Owners: madsa arg
Branches: f17
InitialCC:

Git done (by process-git-requests).

jgroups212-2.12.3-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jgroups212-2.12.3-2.fc17

jgroups212-2.12.3-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 testing repository.

jgroups212-2.12.3-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.