Bug 225953 - Merge Review: jsch
Summary: Merge Review: jsch
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Stanislav Ochotnicky
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
Depends On:
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2007-01-31 19:13 UTC by Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
Modified: 2010-09-24 10:52 UTC (History)
3 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2010-09-24 10:52:50 UTC
Type: ---
sochotni: fedora-review+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it 2007-01-31 19:13:48 UTC
Fedora Merge Review: jsch

Initial Owner: dbhole@redhat.com

Comment 1 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-09-24 08:45:09 UTC
I am gonna look at this

Comment 2 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-09-24 09:24:04 UTC
Package Review

- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

[x]  Rpmlint output: false positives
jsch.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sshd -> ssh, ss hd, ss-hd
jsch.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US sshd -> ssh, ss hd, ss-hd
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines.
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[!]  Buildroot is correct (%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[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.
License type: BSD
[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 %doc.
[!]  All independent sub-packages have License of their own
demo and javadoc subpackages are missing License (or Requires on main package)
[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    : ccf75ce1ee6e2eba717602ff8c344c74
MD5SUM upstream package: ccf75ce1ee6e2eba717602ff8c344c74
[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x]  Package consistently uses macros.
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage
[!]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
main package is missing jpackage-utils in Requires
[!]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
same for javadoc subpackage
[-]  Package uses %global not %define
[-]  If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[-]  If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building
[x]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

=== Other suggestions ===
[x]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} with %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} symlink
[-]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant
[x]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64

=== Issues ===
1. buildroot
2. License in subpackages
3. Requires on jpackage-utils in main package and javadoc subpackage

Comment 3 Alexander Kurtakov 2010-09-24 10:07:22 UTC
=== Issues ===
1. buildroot
According to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines#BuildRoot_tag we don't need the tag anymore and I've removed it.
2. License in subpackages
3. Requires on jpackage-utils in main package and javadoc subpackage


Comment 4 Stanislav Ochotnicky 2010-09-24 10:27:19 UTC
Nice. All problems solved.

*** APPROVED ***

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.