Spec URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-osgi.spec SRPM URL: https://decathorpe.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-osgi-0.2.0-18.fc30.src.rpm Description: Library for Maven-OSGi integration. This is a replacement package for maven-shared-osgi. Fedora Account System Username: decathorpe koji scratch build for rawhide: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=38184774 NOTE: This is a package re-review request for an unretirement after more than 8 weeks. It's still required by some dependencies of the PKI stack.
- License must be included with %license, not %doc %license LICENSE - Obsoletes should be fixed, not dynamic. It should be the version-release just above the package you are obsoleting. Obsoletes: maven-shared-osgi < %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} Provides: maven-shared-osgi = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} Besides this dates back to Fedora 18 so it can be safely removed now. This should have been removed by Fedora 22 times. - You should also remove %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} from %files, it seems already provided by -f .mfiles Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not contain duplicates in %files. Note: warning: File listed twice: /usr/share/java/maven-osgi See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/#_duplicate_files - 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. Note: License file LICENSE is not marked as %license See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maven-osgi See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names ===== 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: "*No copyright* Apache License (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/maven-osgi/review-maven- osgi/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. [-]: 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. [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 20480 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]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [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]: 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 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 ===== 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). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [-]: 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [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. ===== 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: maven-osgi-0.2.0-18.fc32.noarch.rpm maven-osgi-javadoc-0.2.0-18.fc32.noarch.rpm maven-osgi-0.2.0-18.fc32.src.rpm maven-osgi.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Maven-OSGi maven-osgi.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C Maven-OSGi maven-osgi.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-osgi-0.2.0.tar.xz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin from comment #1) > - License must be included with %license, not %doc > > %license LICENSE Good catch. Fixed. > - Obsoletes should be fixed, not dynamic. It should be the version-release > just above the package you are obsoleting. > > Obsoletes: maven-shared-osgi < %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} > Provides: maven-shared-osgi = %{epoch}:%{version}-%{release} > > Besides this dates back to Fedora 18 so it can be safely removed now. This > should have been removed by Fedora 22 times. You're right. I've removed these two lines. fedora 22 can stay dead :) > - You should also remove %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} from %files, it seems > already provided by -f .mfiles Curious, I ran rpmbuild on my locally built RPMs, and I didn't see this error, I think. But it's fixed now. Updated .spec and SRPM available from the same links.
Package approved.
Great. Thanks! https://pagure.io/releng/issue/8899
Built for rawhide. Branch requested for f31, build and update will be done soon. https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1400014