Spec URL: https://leamas.fedorapeople.org/harctoolbox/ExchangeIR.spec SRPM URL: https://leamas.fedorapeople.org/harctoolbox/ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc21.src.rpm Description: Native Java port of a subset of Graham Dixon's C++ library for analysis and conversion of infrared signals Fedora Account System Username: leamas Scratch build: https://copr.fedoraproject.org/coprs/leamas/harctoolbox/builds/ fedora-review: http://ur1.ca/jv0h9
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues: ======= - 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. Note: Cannot find COPYING.txt in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text ===== 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: "GPL (v3 or later)". Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/neal/1199567-ExchangeIR/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-poms/ExchangeIR [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms/ExchangeIR [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 10240 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: 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 [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) 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 DO 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 ExchangeIR- 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 [?]: 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]: 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: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm ExchangeIR-javadoc-0.0.8.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc21.src.rpm ExchangeIR.src: W: invalid-url Source0: ExchangeIR.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- ExchangeIR (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils ExchangeIR-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- ExchangeIR: ExchangeIR mvn(com.hifiremote:ExchangeIR) mvn(com.hifiremote:ExchangeIR:pom:) ExchangeIR-javadoc: ExchangeIR-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1199567 Buildroot used: fedora-21-x86_64 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
Overall, the package looks good, but I think that you should add COPYING.txt to %doc for all generated packages, even if you are already using %license. It is included in the tarball generated from upstream sources, so it should remain present. Please generate a new version with this change, and I'll evaluate it again.
Actually, I just realized that there's one other problem with your package. Because Fedora mostly follows JPackage Project guidelines for packaging Java modules, you need the JPackage compliant Epoch value, which is "1" for Fedora.
hm...before I review your package: is comment #3 really OK? The only thing I find about this is [1], and that only applies to packages providing java i. e., a jvm. Which I certainly don't. Or have I misunderstood this? [1] https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/
As for comment #2 I don't understand this fully. According to the GL [1] it's a must to include license file(s) in %license. However, there's nothing in the GL that the license file(s) also should be mentioned in %doc Also, that license *is* part of the package, it's just that it's a license and not a plain doc: $ rpm -qL -p ~/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc21.noarch.rpm /usr/share/licenses/ExchangeIR/COPYING.txt So, I don't really understand why the license also should be part of %doc. What am I missing? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
Ping?
Clearing needinfo flag since I have provided answers (and new questions)
Just to clarify, we could look into some recent reviews. None of these has a Epoch. Also, they don't add licenses to %doc: bug #1200762, bug #1200771, bug #1200768, bug #1200885
Neal! Are you just out of time to make this review, or are you unsure how to handle it? This one of the last dependencies for a somewhat larger packaging attempt, so some kind of feedback would make things much easier for me.
Sorry, I've been out sick for a while, so I just saw this. I was told the epoch was necessary. In fact, it's even present in packages like undertow[0]. At this time, the package reviewer indicates that if it's bundled into the sources, it *MUST* be in %doc, regardless of its inclusion in %license, too. Until that rule changes, I cannot budge on this. [0]: https://apps.fedoraproject.org/packages/undertow/sources/spec
Actually, my mistake on Epoch. It isn't actually necessary in this case. I just realized why Epoch was used there (to fix a versioning conflict). The epoch isn't necessary, but the text in %doc still is.
(In reply to Neal Gompa from comment #10) > Sorry, > > I've been out sick for a while, so I just saw this. NP, welcome back! Hope you have recovered well. Since we disagree about the necessity of having the license text also in %doc: what about dropping a message to the java mailing list [1]? Do you think an answer there could resolve this issue? Normally, since you are the reviewer you should then send the question. Otherwise, I could do it for you. [1] https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/java-devel
If you havn't sent that question yet (no harm if you have): I can't really see how the reference in comment #10 affects this. Here is nothing in the changelog, and the package does not use the new %license tag. Looking at the review of the same package in bug #987472 I still cannot see that the reviewer has made any notes about using both %doc and %license. However, I can see the same reviewer making his own packages only using %license in bug #1193210 and also approving packages only using %license in bug #1200762 (which BTW is packaged by Mikolaj Izdebski, one of the key players in the java SIG)
This is now the last out of seven dependencies for an upcoming package. So, I'm really motivated to get this running. Is there anything I can do for you to ease this review work?
As for the need for license text as described and linked in comment #10: this review took place before the guidelines was changed [1]. At the point of that review, guidelines required license text to be part of %doc (and there was no %license tag). However, the guidelines changed by February, 15 2015 [1]. After this change, the license text should (only) go to %license, and not %doc. Is this the root of this confusion? [1] https://fedoraproject.org/w/index.php?title=Packaging%3ALicensingGuidelines&diff=400807&oldid=323319
Ping?! If you for some reason not are able to do this review, please de-assign it and clear the fedora-review flag so I can find another reviewer. Otherwise, unless you respond I'm just waiting according to the stalled reviews policy [1] [1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews
Yeah, this is basically the confusion, then. I'll approve the package.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: ExchangeIR Short Description: Java infrared signals analysis and conversion library Upstream URL: http://sourceforge.net/p/controlremote/ Owners: leamas Branches: f21 f22 InitialCC: Neal: Thanks for review!
Git done (by process-git-requests).
ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc22
ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc21
ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.
ExchangeIR-0.0.8.2-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.