Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/filedrop/filedrop.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/filedrop/filedrop-1.1-1.fc16.src.rpm Description: FileDrop makes it easy to drag and drop files from the operating system to a Java program. Any java.awt.Component can be dropped onto, but only javax.swing.JComponents will indicate the drop event with a changed border. Fedora Account System Username: brouhaha
I am triaging old review tickets. I apologize that it has been so long since anyone looked at this ticket, but there are more packages submitted now than the pool of reviewers can handle, and some tickets fall through the cracks. In order to keep the queue manageable, we need to occasionally find tickets which are not reviewable so as to not waste what reviewer time is available. Accordingly, I'm pinging this ticket and setting NEEDINFO. If you are still interested in having your package reviewed, please do the following: * Make sure your package still reflects the current status of its upstream. * Check that your package still builds on current Fedora releases. * Audit your package versus the current status of the packaging guidelines, current rpmlint and current fedora-review tools. And, finally, reply, making sure that the NEEDINFO flag gets cleared so that this ticket reappears in the review queue. I can't promise a review if you reply, but by closing out the stale tickets we can devote extra attention to the ones which aren't stale. One quick note from spec inspection: don't use "%__install"; just call "install" instead. The macros are pointless and discouraged by the guidelines.
Spec URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/filedrop/filedrop.spec SRPM URL: http://fedorapeople.org/~brouhaha/filedrop/filedrop-1.1-2.fc19.src.rpm Removed use of "%__install" macro per request. No rpmlint complaints other than specious spelling warnings. No fedora-review complaints.
INFORMAL REVIEW: Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation ===== 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. [-]: 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. [-]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/sven/834964-filedrop/licensecheck.txt [?]: 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 [-]: 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. [?]: Package does not generate any conflict. [?]: 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. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 4 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 must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 [x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. [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 do not use a name that already exist [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]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== 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. [?]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [?]: 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]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL). [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. [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]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Rpmlint ------- Checking: filedrop-1.1-2.fc18.noarch.rpm filedrop-1.1-2.fc18.src.rpm filedrop.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awt -> aw, at, wt filedrop.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java filedrop.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JComponents -> J Components, Components, Component filedrop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awt -> aw, at, wt filedrop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java filedrop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JComponents -> J Components, Components, Component 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint filedrop filedrop.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awt -> aw, at, wt filedrop.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java filedrop.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JComponents -> J Components, Components, Component 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- filedrop (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils Provides -------- filedrop: filedrop Source checksums ---------------- http://download.sourceforge.net/iharder/filedrop-1.1.zip : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 6192e6def2dadb31c88714ecf09e56015293c67961a996de02fc3d45dfade86c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 6192e6def2dadb31c88714ecf09e56015293c67961a996de02fc3d45dfade86c Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 834964 Buildroot used: fedora-18-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG
Package looks OK. Licensing OK. Builds fine. Latest upstream version, sources match upstream. I don't know what export NO_BRP_CHECK_BYTECODE_VERSION=true is for, but it shouldn't hurt. rpmlint: filedrop.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awt -> aw, at, wt filedrop.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java filedrop.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JComponents -> J Components, Components, Component filedrop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US awt -> aw, at, wt filedrop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US javax -> java, java x, Java filedrop.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US JComponents -> J Components, Components, Component 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: filedrop Short Description: Drag-and-drop support for Java Upstream URL: http://iharder.sourceforge.net/current/java/filedrop/ Owners: brouhaha Branches: f21 epel7 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests). Added f22 since we've branched.
filedrop-1.1-2.fc21 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 21. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/filedrop-1.1-2.fc21
filedrop-1.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 testing repository.
filedrop-1.1-2.fc21 has been pushed to the Fedora 21 stable repository.