Spec URL: http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/jmapviewer.spec SRPM URL: http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: JMapViewer is a Java Swing component for integrating OSM maps into your Java application. JMapViewer allows you to set markers on the map or zoom to a specific location on the map. Fedora Account System Username: msimacek
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to get additional checks ===== 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]: 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". 53 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1092629-jmapviewer/licensecheck.txt [!]: 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/jmapviewer [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/jmapviewer [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. [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 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]: 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]: 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]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build ===== 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jmapviewer- 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc21.noarch.rpm jmapviewer-javadoc-1.03-1.fc21.noarch.rpm jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc21.src.rpm jmapviewer.src: W: strange-permission jmapviewer-generate-tarball.sh 0744L jmapviewer.src: E: specfile-error mvn_install: invalid option -- 'J' jmapviewer.src: E: specfile-error error: Unknown option J in mvn_install() 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jmapviewer jmapviewer-javadoc 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- jmapviewer (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils jmapviewer-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- jmapviewer: jmapviewer mvn(org.openstreetmap:jmapviewer) jmapviewer-javadoc: jmapviewer-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1092629 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Please, fix: [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. add %doc Gpl.txt to javadoc sub package [!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/java/jmapviewer [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/jmapviewer add %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} to main package
>[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. >add %doc Gpl.txt to javadoc sub package Done >[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. > Note: No known owner of /usr/share/java/jmapviewer >[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/jmapviewer >add %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} to main package Moved it to %{_javadir} with %mvn_file >jmapviewer.src: E: specfile-error mvn_install: invalid option -- 'J' Didn't realize this isn't available on f19, corrected. Spec URL: http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/jmapviewer.spec SRPM URL: http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc20.src.rpm Koji scratch-build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6802082
*** Bug 923960 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I just wanted to raise the issue of the bing image in the source. In my previous review request I took care of that by removing the image and the code needing it. I also contacted legal about this. https://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2012-May/001905.html Just so that you are also aware of the issue. The code I removed and all the steps could still be seen in the src.rpm. http://hannes.fedorapeople.org/JMapViewer-2013.03.22-2.fc18.src.rpm
Actually, I based the tarball generation script on yours, so there shouldn't be any references to Bing in the SRPM. Thank you for your work.
Ok, great! Thanks again!
Spec URL: http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/jmapviewer.spec SRPM URL: http://msimacek.fedorapeople.org/jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc20.src.rpm
Please bump release numbers on changes and write a changelog entry. It makes reviewing easier.
a template pom file could be gained by https://adams.cms.waikato.ac.nz/nexus/content/groups/public/org/openstreetmap/jmapviewer/1.0.2/jmapviewer-1.0.2.pom APPROVED
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jmapviewer Short Description: A java component to integrate an OSM map view into your Java application Owners: msimacek mizdebsk msrb Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc20
jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc19
jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
jmapviewer-1.03-1.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.