Bug 913496

I'll do this one.

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

Key:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
  Note: No javadoc subpackage present
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
  Javadoc subpackage should be present.
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java
  You need to require jpackage-utils as it's the owner of the directories files 
  are installed into.
- Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
  subpackage
  Note: No javadoc subpackage present
  See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation


===== 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]: 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
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/akurtakov/tmp/913496-cbi-plugins/licensecheck.txt
[x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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.
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[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]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
     Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
[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).

Java:
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

Maven:
[x]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
     Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant
[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:
[x]: 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]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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.
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[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.
[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.

Java:
[x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
     arched.
[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: cbi-plugins-1.0.1-0.1.git120561.fc19.noarch.rpm
cbi-plugins.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint cbi-plugins
cbi-plugins.noarch: W: no-documentation
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
cbi-plugins (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils
    tycho
    tycho-extras



Provides
--------
cbi-plugins:
    cbi-plugins
    mvn(org.eclipse.cbi.maven.plugins:eclipse-cbi-parent)
    mvn(org.eclipse.cbi.maven.plugins:eclipse-cbi-plugin)
    mvn(org.eclipse.cbi.maven.plugins:eclipse-jarsigner-plugin)



MD5-sum check
-------------
http://git.eclipse.org/c/cbi/org.eclipse.cbi.maven.plugins.git/snapshot/org.eclipse.cbi.maven.plugins-12056187e7701512dd2d6f0908e1264419045d0d.tar.bz2 :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : ab180fefe6dcdbad11dc98d1a4bd8acff716ab95f1e80783e753a73c3b76f97c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ab180fefe6dcdbad11dc98d1a4bd8acff716ab95f1e80783e753a73c3b76f97c


Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 913496

Spec URL: http://kdaniel.fedorapeople.org/cbi-plugins2/cbi-plugins.spec
SRPM URL: http://kdaniel.fedorapeople.org/cbi-plugins2/cbi-plugins-1.0.1-0.2.git120561.fc18.src.rpm

APPROVED

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: cbi-plugins
Short Description: A set of helpers for Eclipse CBI
Owners: kdaniel
Branches: f19
InitialCC: kdaniel

Git done (by process-git-requests).