Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jetbrains-annotations.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jetbrains-annotations-15.0-1.fc23.src.rpm Description: A set of annotations used for code inspection support and code documentation. Fedora Account System Username: gil
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated Issues ====== [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. - as in packaging guidelines the package should preserve timestamps. [1]\ In spec file I can see: "cp $cpfrom $cpto" should there be also a -p option like guidelines say Shoulds ======= [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. - these two go hand in hand I think rpmlint ======= jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation - isn't there a documentation somewhere? There has to be some I think! ===== 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. No licenses found. Please check the source files for licenses manually. [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. [!]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files. [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 jetbrains-annotations-javadoc [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: 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. [x]: %check is present and all tests pass. [!]: 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). Rpmlint ------- Checking: jetbrains-annotations-15.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm jetbrains-annotations-javadoc-15.0-1.fc25.noarch.rpm jetbrains-annotations-15.0-1.fc25.src.rpm jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) IntelliJ -> Intelligent, Lintel jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation jetbrains-annotations.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) IntelliJ -> Intelligent, Lintel 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) IntelliJ -> Intelligent, Lintel jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- jetbrains-annotations-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools jetbrains-annotations (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools Provides -------- jetbrains-annotations-javadoc: jetbrains-annotations-javadoc jetbrains-annotations: jetbrains-annotations mvn(com.intellij:annotations) mvn(com.intellij:annotations:pom:) mvn(org.jetbrains:annotations) mvn(org.jetbrains:annotations:pom:) Source checksums ---------------- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/jetbrains/annotations/15.0/annotations-15.0-sources.jar : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 5ab01a68db908fa869038e1f30f3f6c31e6d90115142f24ced767f9bb7e845e0 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 5ab01a68db908fa869038e1f30f3f6c31e6d90115142f24ced767f9bb7e845e0 http://central.maven.org/maven2/org/jetbrains/annotations/15.0/annotations-15.0.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6726678ac07b481b5e35d3aeefce526b95fd18ede33d0d85cb1c688bcdf0e840 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6726678ac07b481b5e35d3aeefce526b95fd18ede33d0d85cb1c688bcdf0e840 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec -n jetbrains-annotations-15.0-1.fc23.src.rpm 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 Tomas Repik from comment #1) > Package Review > ============== > > Legend: > [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated > > Issues > ====== > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines What do you mean? > [!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. > - as in packaging guidelines the package should preserve timestamps. [1]\ > In spec file I can see: "cp $cpfrom $cpto" should there be also a -p > option like guidelines say Solved > Shoulds > ======= > [!]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate > file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. > [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. > - these two go hand in hand I think > The original source code is available @ https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/ which include LICENSES files. But i don't want use because i don't want download also 3 GB of useless crap for only 113 KB of source code > rpmlint > ======= > jetbrains-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation > - isn't there a documentation somewhere? There has to be some I think! as above Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jetbrains-annotations.spec SRPM URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/jetbrains-annotations-15.0-2.fc23.src.rpm
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) > What do you mean? I meant that the timestamps issue is also mentioned in guidelines so therefore I considered that the guidelines are not met. > Solved By soliving timestamps you also solved guidelines issue. As simple as that. > The original source code is available @ https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/ which include LICENSES files. But i don't want use because i don't want download also 3 GB of useless crap for only 113 KB of source code I agree, sounds reasonable. > documentation as above All right I don't pursue including the whole documentation. I also think creating a simple readme at least explaining where to find information in case of need would be nice. Also for tracking reasons. It's not mandatory though. Just a quick yes or no answer on the documentation and I'll approve this package.
(In reply to Tomas Repik from comment #3) > (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #2) > > What do you mean? > I meant that the timestamps issue is also mentioned in guidelines so > therefore I considered that the guidelines are not met. > > Solved > By soliving timestamps you also solved guidelines issue. As simple as that. Maybe could i remove, the code do not contains resources ... > > The original source code is available @ https://github.com/JetBrains/intellij-community/ which include LICENSES files. But i don't want use because i don't want download also 3 GB of useless crap for only 113 KB of source code > I agree, sounds reasonable. > > documentation as above > All right I don't pursue including the whole documentation. I also think > creating a simple readme at least explaining where to find information in > case of need would be nice. Also for tracking reasons. It's not mandatory > though. > > Just a quick yes or no answer on the documentation and I'll approve this > package. Sorry i do not understand that kind of documentation is needed. If it is for the source code just take a look at the POM file (maven-antrun-plugin). Instead, for the functionality of these apis just the generated java documentation. Finally I do not think I will add nothing else. Thanks for your patience
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4) > If it is for the source code just take a look at the POM file > (maven-antrun-plugin). Instead, for the functionality of these apis just the > generated java documentation. Finally I do not think I will add nothing else. > Thanks for your patience All right Javadoc is fine I guess. The package is by my opinion ready.
Thanks for the review! SCM request: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/5102 https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/requests/5103
Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/jetbrains-annotations
jetbrains-annotations-15.0-2.fc24 has been submitted as an update to Fedora 24. https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5a560d7399
jetbrains-annotations-15.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/QA:Updates_Testing for instructions on how to install test updates. You can provide feedback for this update here: https://bodhi.fedoraproject.org/updates/FEDORA-2016-5a560d7399
jetbrains-annotations-15.0-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.