Spec URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/jspecview.spec SRPM URL: http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/jspecview-2-1.1158svn.fc18.src.rpm Description: The JSpecView Project provides JAVA applets for the display of JCAMP-DX and AnIML/CML spectral files. Fedora Account System Username: jussilehtola This package is necessary for updating JMol to version 13.
Fixed the build system, and updated to release 1166. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/jspecview.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/jspecview-2-1.1166svn.fc18.src.rpm
fedora-review points out issues with javadocs and bundled jar files. Is there a reason why the javadocs aren't desired? Here are excerpts from fedora-review: 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 - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software' Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./jspecview/JSpecView/libs/netscape.jar
Javadocs are now included. The bundled jar warning is spurious. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/jspecview.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/jspecview-2-2.1166svn.fc18.src.rpm
Should include as docs the README.txt, LICENSE.txt, COPYRIGHT.txt from JSpecView/extras. And maybe the other files in that directory?
Done. http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/jspecview.spec http://theory.physics.helsinki.fi/~jzlehtol/rpms/jspecview-2-3.1166svn.fc18.src.rpm
Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed koji scratch build for rawhide: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5375097 Issues: ======= - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Pre-built_JAR_files_.2F_Other_bundled_software' ===== 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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in jspecview- javadoc [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "LGPL (v2.1 or later)", "Unknown or generated", "*No copyright* LGPL (v2.1 or later)". 3 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/eric/fedora- review/927879-jspecview/licensecheck.txt [-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: Package consistently uses macro is (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]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 40960 bytes in 3 files. [x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines. [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]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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. [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 [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). Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) 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. [-]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [-]: 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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Java: [x]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. [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: jspecview-2-3.1166svn.fc17.noarch.rpm jspecview-javadoc-2-3.1166svn.fc17.noarch.rpm jspecview.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/jspecview-2/COPYRIGHT.txt jspecview.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jspecview-2/COPYRIGHT.txt jspecview.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/jspecview-2/LICENSE.txt jspecview.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/jspecview-2/README.txt jspecview.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/jspecview.applet.2.0.10076.jar jspecview.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/jspecview.app.2.0.10076.jar jspecview-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados jspecview-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/javadoc/jspecview/doc/stylesheet.css jspecview-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/javadoc/jspecview/doc/package-list 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 8 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint jspecview-javadoc jspecview jspecview-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados jspecview-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/javadoc/jspecview/doc/stylesheet.css jspecview-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/javadoc/jspecview/doc/package-list jspecview.noarch: W: no-documentation jspecview.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/jspecview.app.2.0.10076.jar jspecview.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/jspecview.applet.2.0.10076.jar 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./jspecview/JSpecView/libs/netscape.jar Requires -------- jspecview-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils jspecview (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils Provides -------- jspecview-javadoc: jspecview-javadoc jspecview: jspecview Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (660ce56) last change: 2013-01-29 Buildroot used: fedora-17-x86_64 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 927879
rpmlint is now picking up a few more warnings. It would be nice to fix the end-of-line encodings and remove the class path from the manifests. Assuming that you notify upstream of the incorrect FSF address, the package is APPROVED
Thanks for the review. I fixed the EOL encodings and notified upstream about the address, but couldn't figure out with a small amount of trying how to get rid of the classpath. New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: jspecview Short Description: JAVA applets for the display of JCAMP-DX and AnIML/CML spectral files Owners: jussilehtola Branches: F-17 F-18 F-19 InitialCC:
Git done (by process-git-requests).
jmol-13.0.15-1.fc19,jspecview-2-4.1169svn.fc19,naga-3.0-1.82svn.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jmol-13.0.15-1.fc19,jspecview-2-4.1169svn.fc19,naga-3.0-1.82svn.fc19
jmol-13.0.15-1.fc18,jspecview-2-4.1169svn.fc18,naga-3.0-1.82svn.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jmol-13.0.15-1.fc18,jspecview-2-4.1169svn.fc18,naga-3.0-1.82svn.fc18
jmol-13.0.15-1.fc19, jspecview-2-4.1169svn.fc19, naga-3.0-1.82svn.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 testing repository.
jmol-13.0.15-1.fc18, jspecview-2-4.1169svn.fc18, naga-3.0-1.82svn.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.
jmol-13.0.15-1.fc19, jspecview-2-4.1169svn.fc19, naga-3.0-1.82svn.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.