Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/auto.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/auto-1.0-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: The Auto subprojects are a collection of code generators that automate those types of tasks. jclouds 1.9.0 dependency Fedora Account System Username: gil Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9384784
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/auto.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/auto-1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm - enable factory module
This is an informal review of your spec file without any required modification. all is SHOULD only. * Please use a more specific name to avoid any confusion. Auto is too generically though it is the upstream name. Suggestion for a descriptive name: auto-code-generators https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines > Name: auto * Use the %{url} macro to shorten the links. > URL: https://github.com/google/auto > Source0: https://github.com/google/auto/archive/auto-value-%{version}.tar.gz URL: https://github.com/google/%{name} Source0: %{url}/archive/auto-value-%{version}.tar.gz * Use the %{name} macro consistently: pleae replace all occurances of auto (or the final package name we chose) with the %{name} macro. * Be more specific in the summaries of the subpackages. Given one word only seems to be too few for a descriptive summary. If in doubt, you could use %{summary} then for the %description text to have the text there, too. * Are there no dependencies between the subpackages? Why is there a common subpackage?
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #2) > This is an informal review of your spec file without any required > modification. all is SHOULD only. > > * Please use a more specific name to avoid any confusion. Auto is too > generically though it is the upstream name. > Suggestion for a descriptive name: auto-code-generators > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines > > Name: auto for me is enough auto > * Use the %{url} macro to shorten the links. > > URL: https://github.com/google/auto > > Source0: https://github.com/google/auto/archive/auto-value-%{version}.tar.gz > URL: https://github.com/google/%{name} > Source0: %{url}/archive/auto-value-%{version}.tar.gz > > * Use the %{name} macro consistently: pleae replace all occurances of auto > (or the final package name we chose) with the %{name} macro. this for me is useless, ... i not interested to use %{name} macro in the way you want it, for me it makes no sense > * Be more specific in the summaries of the subpackages. Given one word only > seems to be too few for a descriptive summary. If in doubt, you could use > %{summary} then for the %description text to have the text there, too. any ideas? > * Are there no dependencies between the subpackages? Why is there a common > subpackage? dependencies are all listed have see the source root? auto-common is a java library
DEBUG util.py:388: Error: No Package found for mvn(com.squareup.dagger:dagger-compiler) … with fedora-review at target rawhide
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #4) > DEBUG util.py:388: Error: No Package found for > mvn(com.squareup.dagger:dagger-compiler) > > … with fedora-review at target rawhide depend on dagger rhbz#1207948
Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/auto.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/auto-1.0-2.fc20.src.rpm Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9709171
- test files could be ignored cause not used. - but main package should have correct licensed files. Unknown or generated -------------------- auto-auto-value-1.0/factory/src/it/functional/src/test/java/com/google/auto/factory/DependencyInjectionIntegrationTest.java auto-auto-value-1.0/factory/src/main/java/com/google/auto/factory/processor/FactoryWriter.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/it/functional/src/main/java/com/google/auto/value/NestedValueType.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/main/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/AutoAnnotationProcessor.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/main/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/Reformatter.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/test/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/AbstractMethodExtractorTest.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/test/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/AbstractMethodListerTest.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/test/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/AutoAnnotationErrorsTest.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/test/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/CompilationTest.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/test/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/JavaTokenizerTest.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/test/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/NoVelocityLoggingTest.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/test/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/PropertyAnnotationsTest.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/test/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/ReformatterTest.java auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/test/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/TemplateVarsTest.java
APPROVED 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". 14 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/build/fedora- review/1207847-auto/licensecheck.txt ==> OK, but please check with upstream to include correct license headers. [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [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. [-]: 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 61440 bytes in 5 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]: 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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [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]: Dist tag is present. [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 does not use a name that already exists. [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 metadata) 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 .mfiles file list 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in auto- common , auto-factory , auto-service , auto-value , auto-javadoc ==> Maven. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: 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]: 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]: 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: auto-1.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm auto-common-1.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm auto-factory-1.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm auto-service-1.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm auto-value-1.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm auto-javadoc-1.0-2.fc23.noarch.rpm auto-1.0-2.fc23.src.rpm auto.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subprojects -> sub projects, sub-projects, projects auto-service.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal auto-service.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, until, u til auto-service.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ServiceLoader -> Service Loader, Service-loader, Serviceable auto.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subprojects -> sub projects, sub-projects, projects 7 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- auto.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US subprojects -> sub projects, sub-projects, projects auto-service.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data, meta-data, metatarsal auto-service.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US util -> til, until, u til auto-service.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ServiceLoader -> Service Loader, Service-loader, Serviceable 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 4 warnings. Requires -------- auto (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(org.apache.maven.plugins:maven-compiler-plugin) mvn(org.sonatype.oss:oss-parent:pom:) auto-value (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(com.google.auto.service:auto-service) mvn(com.google.auto:auto-common) mvn(com.google.guava:guava) mvn(org.apache.velocity:velocity) mvn(org.ow2.asm:asm) auto-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils auto-service (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(com.google.auto:auto-common) mvn(com.google.guava:guava) auto-factory (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(com.google.auto.service:auto-service) mvn(com.google.guava:guava) mvn(com.squareup.dagger:dagger) mvn(com.squareup:javawriter) mvn(javax.inject:javax.inject) auto-common (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils mvn(com.google.guava:guava) Provides -------- auto: auto mvn(com.google.auto:auto-parent:pom:) auto-value: auto-value mvn(com.google.auto.value:auto-value) mvn(com.google.auto.value:auto-value:pom:) auto-javadoc: auto-javadoc auto-service: auto-service mvn(com.google.auto.service:auto-service) mvn(com.google.auto.service:auto-service:pom:) auto-factory: auto-factory mvn(com.google.auto.factory:auto-factory) mvn(com.google.auto.factory:auto-factory:pom:) auto-common: auto-common mvn(com.google.auto:auto-common) mvn(com.google.auto:auto-common:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/google/auto/archive/auto-value-1.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : dd01aeeffe21ef8d8f84293b975af71fb1a3229475da6c03f2c8c9f0e463d769 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : dd01aeeffe21ef8d8f84293b975af71fb1a3229475da6c03f2c8c9f0e463d769 Generated by fedora-review 0.5.3 (bcf15e3) last change: 2015-05-04 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -vv -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 1207847 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
(In reply to Raphael Groner from comment #7) > - test files could be ignored cause not used. > - but main package should have correct licensed files. > > Unknown or generated > -------------------- ASL 2.0 auto-auto-value-1.0/factory/src/main/java/com/google/auto/factory/processor/ FactoryWriter.java ASL 2.0 auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/main/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/ AutoAnnotationProcessor.java File without license header auto-auto-value-1.0/value/src/main/java/com/google/auto/value/processor/Reformatter.java as says the first comment this file is own by auto developer/s The other or are suitable only for testing (src/test) and integration test (src/it), and non influence the license field so, how the license field should change? sorry, i dont understand thanks
again thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: auto Short Description: A collection of source code generators for Java Upstream URL: https://github.com/google/auto Owners: gil Branches: f22 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
auto-1.0-2.fc22 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 22. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/auto-1.0-2.fc22
auto-1.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 testing repository.
auto-1.0-2.fc22 has been pushed to the Fedora 22 stable repository.