Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/junit5/opentest4j.spec SRPM URL: https://mizdebsk.fedorapeople.org/review/junit5/opentest4j-1.0.0-1.fc26.src.rpm Description: Open Test Alliance for the JVM is a minimal common foundation for testing libraries on the JVM. The primary goal of the project is to enable testing frameworks like JUnit, TestNG, Spock, etc. and third-party assertion libraries like Hamcrest, AssertJ, etc. to use a common set of exceptions that IDEs and build tools can support in a consistent manner across all testing scenarios -- for example, for consistent handling of failed assertions and failed assumptions as well as visualization of test execution in IDEs and reports. Fedora Account System Username: mizdebsk
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software' - Nitpick: mixed tabs and spaces - I think you should preserve the manifest entries added by gradle build. At least Implementation-* and Specification-*. ===== 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", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 12 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/msimacek/reviews/1491997-opentest4j/licensecheck.txt [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. [x]: 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. [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. [x]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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: [x]: 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 opentest4j-javadoc [?]: 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. [?]: 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]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [!]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) No, but IMO this way it's more maintainable, so OK. [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: opentest4j-1.0.0-1.fc28.noarch.rpm opentest4j-javadoc-1.0.0-1.fc28.noarch.rpm opentest4j-1.0.0-1.fc28.src.rpm opentest4j.src:43: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 1, tab: line 43) 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- sh: /usr/bin/python: No such file or directory 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Requires -------- opentest4j (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java-headless javapackages-tools opentest4j-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-tools Provides -------- opentest4j: mvn(org.opentest4j:opentest4j) mvn(org.opentest4j:opentest4j:pom:) opentest4j osgi(org.opentest4j) opentest4j-javadoc: opentest4j-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/ota4j-team/opentest4j/archive/r1.0.0.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 378f47df09dad9a24ca913161143d8470e26aca6ef0dd18f3f2a4219ea6fc99e CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 378f47df09dad9a24ca913161143d8470e26aca6ef0dd18f3f2a4219ea6fc99e https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/opentest4j/opentest4j/1.0.0/opentest4j-1.0.0.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 60a9f080030e8ee4749796cbfad424488c01e5d2337c5ae15277bded0d87eb93 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 60a9f080030e8ee4749796cbfad424488c01e5d2337c5ae15277bded0d87eb93 Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./opentest4j-r1.0.0/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar Generated by fedora-review 0.6.1 (f03e4e7) last change: 2016-05-02 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1491997 Buildroot used: rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Fixed in-place. (In reply to Michael Simacek from comment #1) > - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build > Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) > See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre- > built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software' gradle-wrapper.jar... Removed. > - Nitpick: mixed tabs and spaces Untabified spec. > - I think you should preserve the manifest entries added by gradle build. At > least Implementation-* and Specification-*. Done.
APPROVED
(fedrepo-req-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/opentest4j
Successfully built for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=21882009