Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/fishbowl.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/fishbowl-1.4.1-1.fc34.src.rpm Description: Fishbowl provides helper methods for dealing with exceptions. Fedora Account System Username: didiksupriadi41
This package built on koji: https://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=75824119
> %pom_remove_dep com.google.truth:truth > %pom_remove_dep org.easytesting:fest-assert > %pom_remove_dep org.mockito:mockito-core > %pom_remove_dep org.assertj:assertj-core > %pom_remove_dep org.testng:testng > %pom_remove_dep de.bechte.junit:junit-hierarchicalcontextrunner Why are these POM changes needed? Does it make sense to put the reason/explanation into comments inside the spec file?
(In reply to Robert Scheck from comment #2) > > %pom_remove_dep com.google.truth:truth > > %pom_remove_dep org.easytesting:fest-assert > > %pom_remove_dep org.mockito:mockito-core > > %pom_remove_dep org.assertj:assertj-core > > %pom_remove_dep org.testng:testng > > %pom_remove_dep de.bechte.junit:junit-hierarchicalcontextrunner > > Why are these POM changes needed? Does it make sense to put the > reason/explanation into comments inside the spec file? Yes, I've fixed some issues and added explanations Spec URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/fishbowl.spec SRPM URL: https://didiksupriadi41.fedorapeople.org/fishbowl-1.4.1-2.fc34.src.rpm
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", "MIT License", "*No copyright* MIT License", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0". 18 files have unknown license (-> these are MIT due to README.md license explanation). [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. [-]: 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. [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 below). [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]: 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 must not depend on deprecated() packages. [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 javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It is pulled in by maven-local Maven: [?]: 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 below). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: 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. [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. [-]: %check is present and all tests pass. [-]: 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: [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 ------- fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs: 99% fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 287630 fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/javadoc/fishbowl/jquery/jquery-3.5.1.js /usr/share/javadoc/fishbowl/jquery/external/jquery/jquery.js fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/fishbowl/member-search-index.zip fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/fishbowl/package-search-index.zip fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/fishbowl/type-search-index.zip fishbowl.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary fishbowl.src: W: description-shorter-than-summary -> I don't think the -javadoc issues can be addressed via the spec file, as the package is automatically generated using Fedora RPM macros Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs: 99% fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: E: files-duplicated-waste 287630 fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: W: files-duplicate /usr/share/javadoc/fishbowl/jquery/jquery-3.5.1.js /usr/share/javadoc/fishbowl/jquery/external/jquery/jquery.js fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/fishbowl/member-search-index.zip fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/fishbowl/package-search-index.zip fishbowl-javadoc.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/javadoc/fishbowl/type-search-index.zip fishbowl.noarch: W: description-shorter-than-summary -> I don't think the -javadoc issues can be addressed via the spec file, as the package is automatically generated using Fedora RPM macros Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/stefanbirkner/fishbowl/archive/fishbowl-1.4.1/fishbowl-1.4.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : ea6e368aa16e71861e9a9ea62fa7f9c4131c54ee2ab3994f17669161e36f8392 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : ea6e368aa16e71861e9a9ea62fa7f9c4131c54ee2ab3994f17669161e36f8392 Requires -------- fishbowl (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): (java-headless or java-11-headless) javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- fishbowl: fishbowl mvn(com.github.stefanbirkner:fishbowl) mvn(com.github.stefanbirkner:fishbowl:pom:) Generated by fedora-review 0.7.6 (b083f91) last change: 2020-11-10 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2005183 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Java, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, C/C++, R, Haskell, Perl, SugarActivity, PHP, Ocaml, Python Disabled flags: EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH, EXARCH -> APPROVED
(fedscm-admin): The Pagure repository was created at https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/fishbowl