Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/svnkit.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/svnkit-1.8.12-7.fc33.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: mbooth Description: SVNKit is a pure java Subversion client library. You would like to use SVNKit when you need to access or modify Subversion repository from your Java application, as a standalone program and plugin or web application. Being a pure java program, SVNKit doesn't need any additional configuration or native binaries to work on any OS that runs java.
This is a re-review for unretirement: https://pagure.io/releng/issue/9599
- HTTPS required for Maven: Source1: https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/tmatesoft/svnkit/svnkit/%{version}/svnkit-%{version}.pom Source2: https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/tmatesoft/svnkit/svnkit-cli/%{version}/svnkit-cli-%{version}.pom Source3: https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/org/tmatesoft/svnkit/svnkit-javahl16/%{version}/svnkit-javahl16-%{version}.pom Otherwise it returns error 501: 501 HTTPS Required. Use https://repo1.maven.org/maven2/ More information at https://links.sonatype.com/central/501-https-required Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import. 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. [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", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License", "Apache License 1.1", "BSD 3-clause "New" or "Revised" License GNU Lesser General Public License", "GPL (v2)", "*No copyright* GNU Lesser General Public License", "Apache License 2.0", "GNU Lesser General Public License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Public domain Apache License 2.0". 1495 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/bob/packaging/review/svnkit/review-svnkit/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [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. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 30720 bytes in 2 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 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]: 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 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 ===== 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 svnkit- cli , svnkit-javahl [?]: 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. [-]: 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]: 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: No rpmlint messages. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: svnkit-1.8.12-7.fc33.noarch.rpm svnkit-cli-1.8.12-7.fc33.noarch.rpm svnkit-javahl-1.8.12-7.fc33.noarch.rpm svnkit-javadoc-1.8.12-7.fc33.noarch.rpm svnkit-1.8.12-7.fc33.src.rpm svnkit-cli.noarch: W: no-documentation svnkit-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsvn svnkit-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsvnadmin svnkit-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsvndumpfilter svnkit-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsvnlook svnkit-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsvnsync svnkit-cli.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary jsvnversion svnkit-javahl.noarch: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib svnkit-javahl.noarch: W: no-documentation svnkit.src: W: invalid-url Source5: javahl-1.8.1.tar.gz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.
(In reply to Robert-André Mauchin 🐧 from comment #2) > > Package approved, please fix the aforementioned issue before import. > Of course, see commit https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/svnkit/c/76821d3d905a0587d955e168e08ceafb6fb75f84 Thanks for the review, rawhide build: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=1544232