Spec URL: https://github.com/hegjon/java-scrypt-rpm/raw/master/java-scrypt.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/hegjon/java-scrypt-rpm/raw/master/java-scrypt-1.4.0-1.fc22.src.rpm Description: A pure Java implementation of the scrypt key derivation function Fedora Account System Username: jonny Koji build link: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=10649381 I need a sponsor. This is my fourth package, but my other packages have not been accepted yet. Alexander Kurtakov have started review of one of my package hid4java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1230949
I disabled jni since the C library is bundled from another project.
Upstream informed
Removing FE-NEEDSPONSOR as I sponsored Jonny.
Asked upstream to clearify the license by including a header in the source files. No feedback after 25 days. https://github.com/wg/scrypt/issues/34
jerboaa's scratch build of java-1.8.0-openjdk?#d28765c33d068af9ff432a92443b93beeef88a22 for git://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/java-1.8.0-openjdk?#d28765c33d068af9ff432a92443b93beeef88a22 and rawhide failed http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=12181621
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. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "BSD (2 clause)", "Unknown or generated". 27 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1251689-java- scrypt/licensecheck.txt JNI library is not built [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 [-]: 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]: 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in java- scrypt-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [-]: 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: java-scrypt-1.4.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm java-scrypt-javadoc-1.4.0-1.fc24.noarch.rpm java-scrypt-1.4.0-1.fc24.src.rpm java-scrypt.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: File o directory non esistente java-scrypt.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- java-scrypt-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils java-scrypt (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless jpackage-utils Provides -------- java-scrypt-javadoc: java-scrypt-javadoc java-scrypt: java-scrypt mvn(com.lambdaworks:scrypt) mvn(com.lambdaworks:scrypt:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/wg/scrypt/archive/1.4.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5f57508ee516009532b215a209ae0ae887e15a8ec05916a3a13f1b1dce348425 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5f57508ee516009532b215a209ae0ae887e15a8ec05916a3a13f1b1dce348425 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1251689 --plugins Java -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, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
NON blocking issues: you should use %global commit0 0675236370458e819ee21e4427c5f7f3f9485d33 Source0: https://github.com/wg/scrypt/archive/%{commit0}.tar.gz https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/SourceURL#Git_Hosting_Services %doc README should be removed in javadoc sub package Approved
Thanks for the review and the pointer. I have a question, since upstream have tagged the release, should I use the tag name or the commit hash? The Fedora wiki sugest this in the Git Tags section: > Source0: https://github.com/OWNER/%{name}/archive/GIT-TAG.tar.gz#/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/java-scrypt