Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jj2000.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jj2000-5.2-1.fc20.src.rpm Description: This project is a JPEG 2000 encoder/decoder written in pure Java. Its goal is to be a reference implementation of (at least) part 1 of the JPEG 2000 specification. Fork of jpeg2k code from https://code.google.com/p/jj2000/. This is a dependency for support of compression in Grib2 files in netCDF-java and TDS (https://github.com/Unidata/thredds). Fedora Account System Username: gil Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=9538169
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed 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 COPYRIGHT in rpm(s) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text - 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 224 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/mskalick/1214385-jj2000/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/licenses, /usr/share/maven-metadata [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses, /usr/share /maven-metadata [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [x]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. Note: Test run failed [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Test run failed [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Note: Test run failed [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. Java: [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Test run failed ===== 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 jj2000-javadoc [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]: 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]: 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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Test run failed [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: jj2000-5.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm jj2000-javadoc-5.2-1.fc23.noarch.rpm jj2000-5.2-1.fc23.src.rpm jj2000.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes jj2000.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netCDF -> netted jj2000.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib jj2000.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) codec -> codex, code, codes jj2000.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US netCDF -> netted 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- Cannot parse rpmlint output: Requires -------- jj2000 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils jj2000-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- jj2000: jj2000 mvn(edu.ucar:jj2000) mvn(edu.ucar:jj2000:pom:) jj2000-javadoc: jj2000-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/Unidata/jj2000/archive/v5.2.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : e1045ef5ea0f6df126bda7b826c11fdba09f2d14bd5926e762b3773c67665b4c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : e1045ef5ea0f6df126bda7b826c11fdba09f2d14bd5926e762b3773c67665b4c Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1214385 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 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, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
Blocking: [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. - jj2000.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib jj2000 should use %{_javadir} — /usr/share/java ("Directory that holds all JAR files that do not contain or use native code and do not depend on a particular Java standard version. JAR files can either be placed directly in this directory or one of its subdirectories. Often packages create their own subdirectories there, in this case subdirectory name should match package name.") Non blocking: [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. I also recommend to remove "This is a dependency for support of compression in Grib2 files in netCDF-java and TDS (https://github.com/Unidata/thredds). " from description. Because in Fedora this package can be used by other projects/programs too. But it is only my feeling...
(In reply to Marek Skalický from comment #2) > Blocking: > > [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > - jj2000.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > jj2000 should use %{_javadir} — /usr/share/java /usr/lib/java/jj2000.jar > ("Directory that holds all JAR files that do not contain or use native > code and do not depend on a particular Java standard version. JAR files can > either be placed directly in this directory or one of its subdirectories. > Often packages create their own subdirectories there, in this case > subdirectory name should match package name.") is not applicable for this library see https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_JNI this library use some classes for use/load native libraries > > Non blocking: > > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > I also recommend to remove "This is a dependency for support of compression > in Grib2 files in > netCDF-java and TDS (https://github.com/Unidata/thredds). > " from description. Because in Fedora this package can be used by other > projects/programs too. But it is only my feeling... There are several projects that use a customized version of this library. This clarification should be understood that probably, this fork may not be suitable for other projects. Thanks!
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #3) > (In reply to Marek Skalický from comment #2) > > Blocking: > > > > [!]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. > > - jj2000.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib > > > > jj2000 should use %{_javadir} — /usr/share/java > /usr/lib/java/jj2000.jar > > ("Directory that holds all JAR files that do not contain or use native > > code and do not depend on a particular Java standard version. JAR files can > > either be placed directly in this directory or one of its subdirectories. > > Often packages create their own subdirectories there, in this case > > subdirectory name should match package name.") > is not applicable for this library > see > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging: > Java#Packaging_JAR_files_that_use_JNI > this library use some classes for use/load native libraries But I think these used classes should be in /usr/lib/java, not your class. I haven't found it in packaging guidelines, but in my opinion JAR file use JNI when it directly call native library. I've looked into fedora how another packages do it and for example first what I've found is dbus-java, which requires JNI package libmatthew-java, but still use /usr/share/java. I know it is not any proof, but we can ask on devel list. > > > > Non blocking: > > > > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > > file > > from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > > > I also recommend to remove "This is a dependency for support of compression > > in Grib2 files in > > netCDF-java and TDS (https://github.com/Unidata/thredds). > > " from description. Because in Fedora this package can be used by other > > projects/programs too. But it is only my feeling... > > There are several projects that use a customized version of this library. > This clarification should be understood that probably, this fork may not be > suitable for other projects. > > Thanks! OK.
seem non free https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-legal-list/2008-December/msg00004.html https://github.com/Unidata/jj2000/issues/5
This library is NON free. Removed jj2000 support from the grib module.