Fedora Account System
Red Hat Associate
Red Hat Customer
Spec URL: https://github.com/normlanguage/distribution-packaging/releases/download/minlog-1.3.1-fedora2/minlog.spec SRPM URL: https://github.com/normlanguage/distribution-packaging/releases/download/minlog-1.3.1-fedora2/minlog-1.3.1-2.fc46.src.rpm Description: MinLog provides lightweight Java logging with configurable levels and custom log handlers. This package is needed for Kryo 5 and the Norm programming language toolchain. This is a re-review of a package retired on 2019-09-11 after being orphaned for more than six weeks. The original accepted review was Bug 919495: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=919495 Fedora Account System Username: w0fv1 I am a new Fedora packager and need a sponsor. I welcome coordination with the Java SIG and any existing packaging or review work for MinLog. The package was built successfully from upstream source in a clean Fedora Rawhide x86_64 mock environment. Its logging behavior check ran during the build and against the freshly installed RPM. Rpmlint reports zero errors and one documentation-ratio warning. Build log: https://github.com/normlanguage/distribution-packaging/releases/download/minlog-1.3.1-fedora2/build.log Installed-library check: https://github.com/normlanguage/distribution-packaging/releases/download/minlog-1.3.1-fedora2/installed-check.log Rpmlint report: https://github.com/normlanguage/distribution-packaging/releases/download/minlog-1.3.1-fedora2/rpmlint.log Packaging repository: https://github.com/normlanguage/distribution-packaging/tree/main/minlog/fedora Reproducible: Didn't try Steps to Reproduce: Not applicable. This is a Fedora package re-review request. Actual Results: Not applicable. This is a Fedora package re-review request. Expected Results: Review of the MinLog package and sponsorship for a new Fedora packager.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/minlog 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: "Unknown or generated", "BSD 3-Clause License". 9 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/fedora-packaging-local/reviews/minlog/2537846- minlog/licensecheck.txt [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries or specifies bundled libraries with Provides: bundled(<libname>) if unbundling is not possible. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. [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 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4589 bytes in 1 files. [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 [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: javapackages-tools (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: [-]: 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. [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. [ ]: 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]: 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. Java: [ ]: 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 ------- Checking: minlog-1.3.1-2.fc46.noarch.rpm minlog-javadoc-1.3.1-2.fc46.noarch.rpm minlog-1.3.1-2.fc46.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.8.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpzshx77ly')] checks: 32, packages: 3 minlog-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99% 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 11 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.7 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.10.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.15/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 33, packages: 2 minlog-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 99% 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings, 7 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.1 s Source checksums ---------------- https://github.com/EsotericSoftware/minlog/archive/11222d46ff9d6209c5af51466000341cd5d29034/minlog-1.3.1.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 256f800791f43f47ea07d0441070fc7a4c6123131f683ff88b6c9795d838ad96 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 256f800791f43f47ea07d0441070fc7a4c6123131f683ff88b6c9795d838ad96 Requires -------- minlog (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem minlog-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): javapackages-filesystem Provides -------- minlog: jpms(com.esotericsoftware.minlog) minlog mvn(com.esotericsoftware:minlog) mvn(com.esotericsoftware:minlog:pom:) minlog-javadoc: minlog-javadoc Generated by fedora-review 0.11.0 (05c5b26) last change: 2025-11-29 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 2537846 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Shell-api, Generic, Java Disabled plugins: Haskell, C/C++, R, Perl, Python, fonts, PHP, Ocaml, SugarActivity Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH Comments: a) Consider using: ExclusiveArch: %{java_arches} noarch see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_architecture_support b) Should the main package have Requires: java-headless see https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-guidelines/Java/#_buildrequires_and_requires c) The documentation seems to package fonts. Can fonts that exist in Fedora by symlinked to instead?