Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds-4.3.16-1.fc18.src.rpm Description: The Unidata THREDDS project includes the netCDF-Java library (aka CDM) and the THREDDS Data Server (TDS). Fedora Account System Username: gil
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds-4.3.16-1.fc19.src.rpm
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds-4.3.18-1.fc19.src.rpm - update to 4.3.18
Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds-4.3.19-1.fc19.src.rpm - update to 4.3.19 Task info: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=6065721
taken ;)
Package has some issues or needs some clarification. :( ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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. [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD", "BSD", "BSD (2 clause)". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/978569-thredds/licensecheck.txt ---> There are some licenses mentioned which don't appear to be used somewhere?!? [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/thredds ---> please make that owned by the applicable pkg(s). [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/udunits(udunits2, udunits) ---> Is this intentional and causes no conflicts?!? Or are there some (hidden) bundlings?!? [?]: 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. [?]: 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. ---> Shouldn't there be a systemd-unit, since this is a server of some kind?!? [x]: 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 5 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> Issues present or clarification needed. [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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) 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 DOES 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 %{_mavenpomdir} 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in netcdf-java , udunits , thredds-javadoc ---> False positive. Packages can be used independently. [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. ---> Why did you disable the testsuite?!? [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: 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]: 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: thredds-4.3.19-1.fc21.noarch.rpm netcdf-java-4.3.19-1.fc21.noarch.rpm udunits-4.3.19-1.fc21.noarch.rpm thredds-javadoc-4.3.19-1.fc21.noarch.rpm thredds-4.3.19-1.fc21.src.rpm netcdf-java.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C NetCDF-Java udunits.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ucar -> car, scar, u car thredds.src: W: invalid-url Source0: thredds-4.3.19-clean.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint netcdf-java thredds thredds-javadoc udunits netcdf-java.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C NetCDF-Java udunits.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ucar -> car, scar, u car 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- netcdf-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils mvn(com.google.protobuf:protobuf-java) mvn(com.sleepycat:je) mvn(edu.ucar:udunits) mvn(joda-time:joda-time) mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna) mvn(net.jcip:jcip-annotations) mvn(net.sf.ehcache:ehcache-core) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpcore) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpmime) mvn(org.jdom:jdom2) mvn(org.quartz-scheduler:quartz) mvn(org.slf4j:jcl-over-slf4j) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) thredds (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils mvn(junit:junit) thredds-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils udunits (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- netcdf-java: mvn(edu.ucar:netcdf) netcdf-java thredds: mvn(edu.ucar:thredds-parent) mvn(edu.ucar:thredds-parent:pom:) thredds thredds-javadoc: thredds-javadoc udunits: mvn(edu.ucar:udunits) udunits Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 978569 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ##### Please fix the issues and clarify my questions. I'll take another run afterwards.
(In reply to Björn "besser82" Esser from comment #5) > Package has some issues or needs some clarification. :( > > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. > Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: > "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache > (v2.0) > BSD", "BSD", "BSD (2 clause)". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed > output of licensecheck in > /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/978569-thredds/licensecheck.txt > > ---> There are some licenses mentioned which don't appear to > be used somewhere?!? > yes but now i forgotten this changed field as License: ASL 2.0 and BSD > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/thredds > > ---> please make that owned by the applicable pkg(s). sorry, not enough? %files -f .mfiles-%{name}-parent %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} %doc README.md cdm/license.txt > [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. > Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: > /usr/share/doc/udunits(udunits2, > udunits) > > ---> Is this intentional and causes no conflicts?!? > Or are there some (hidden) bundlings?!? no this a Java "port" of netcdf and udunits and this modules dont have bundled libraries (udunits2 is a C library) > [?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. no these basic modules haven't this problem, you are aware of the contrary? > [?]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. > > ---> Shouldn't there be a systemd-unit, since this is a server > of some kind?!? no at the moment have a lot of missing build deps for build the main (tds) and others required modules which use hard customized libraries such as (for e.g.): opendap (from http://www.opendap.org/ but for the project the original source code is unusable, and use an old version 0.0.7) and the original source archive has a weight around 340M > [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines > > ---> Issues present or clarification needed. sorry i not understand which is the problem? > > ---> Why did you disable the testsuite?!? test suite isnt disable, for run need to build other modules: cdm-test it and these ones, at the moment, have not build deps, as e.g. edu.wisc.ssec:visad (i m not sure which this library is free/open sources) > > Please fix the issues and clarify my questions. I'll take another run > afterwards. Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds-4.3.19-2.fc19.src.rpm
Thanks for the carification, Gil! Package still has one issue. :( ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD", "BSD", "BSD (2 clause)". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/978569-thredds/licensecheck.txt ---> License-tag is fine. :) [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/thredds ---> double-check if this dir is owned by the applicable rpms. [!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/doc/udunits(udunits2, udunits) ---> there are conflicts with: udunits.i686 1.12.11-10.fc20 fedora udunits.x86_64 1.12.11-10.fc20 fedora udunits2.i686 2.1.24-5.fc20 fedora udunits2.x86_64 2.1.24-5.fc20 fedora I'd recommend renaming udunits ---> java-udunits. [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. [!]: Package does not generate any conflict. ---> see above. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [x]: 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. [x]: 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 5 files. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines ---> issues are present. :( [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 %doc. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) 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 DOES 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 %{_mavenpomdir} 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). [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in netcdf-java , udunits , thredds-javadoc ---> false positives. Those packages are to be used idependently from main package, too. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. ---> testsuite needs additional compenents to be build, which are WIP. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: 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]: 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: thredds-4.3.19-2.fc21.noarch.rpm netcdf-java-4.3.19-2.fc21.noarch.rpm udunits-4.3.19-2.fc21.noarch.rpm thredds-javadoc-4.3.19-2.fc21.noarch.rpm thredds-4.3.19-2.fc21.src.rpm netcdf-java.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C NetCDF-Java udunits.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ucar -> car, scar, u car thredds.src: W: invalid-url Source0: thredds-4.3.19-clean.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint netcdf-java thredds thredds-javadoc udunits netcdf-java.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary C NetCDF-Java udunits.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ucar -> car, scar, u car 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- netcdf-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils mvn(com.google.protobuf:protobuf-java) mvn(com.sleepycat:je) mvn(edu.ucar:udunits) mvn(joda-time:joda-time) mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna) mvn(net.jcip:jcip-annotations) mvn(net.sf.ehcache:ehcache-core) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpcore) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpmime) mvn(org.jdom:jdom2) mvn(org.quartz-scheduler:quartz) mvn(org.slf4j:jcl-over-slf4j) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) thredds (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils mvn(junit:junit) thredds-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils udunits (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- netcdf-java: mvn(edu.ucar:netcdf) netcdf-java thredds: mvn(edu.ucar:thredds-parent) mvn(edu.ucar:thredds-parent:pom:) thredds thredds-javadoc: thredds-javadoc udunits: mvn(edu.ucar:udunits) udunits Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 978569 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ##### Please rename `udunits` ---> `java-udunits` to resolve the conflict and I'll approve.
Thanks! Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds.spec SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/thredds-4.3.19-3.fc19.src.rpm - renamed sub package udunits - preserved timestamp of file istalled manually
Package LGTM, now. :) ##### Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated ===== 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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD", "BSD", "BSD (2 clause)". 157 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/978569-thredds/licensecheck.txt ---> License-tag is fine. :) [x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/thredds ---> make sure to double-check this dir is owned by the applicable (sub-)packages. [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. [x]: 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 5 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]: 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 requires other packages for directories it uses. [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 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: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) [x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Maven: [x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) 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 DOES 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 %{_mavenpomdir} 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). [-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in netcdf-java , java-udunits , thredds-javadoc ---> These pkgs can be used independently from main-pkg. docs should be independent from binaries, too. [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: 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. ---> testsuite needs binaries which are WIP, currently. [x]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [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]: 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]: 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: thredds-4.3.19-3.fc21.noarch.rpm netcdf-java-4.3.19-3.fc21.noarch.rpm java-udunits-4.3.19-3.fc21.noarch.rpm thredds-javadoc-4.3.19-3.fc21.noarch.rpm thredds-4.3.19-3.fc21.src.rpm java-udunits.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ucar -> car, scar, u car thredds.src: W: invalid-url Source0: thredds-4.3.19-clean.tar.xz 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint netcdf-java thredds thredds-javadoc java-udunits java-udunits.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ucar -> car, scar, u car 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- netcdf-java (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils mvn(com.google.protobuf:protobuf-java) mvn(com.sleepycat:je) mvn(edu.ucar:udunits) mvn(joda-time:joda-time) mvn(net.java.dev.jna:jna) mvn(net.jcip:jcip-annotations) mvn(net.sf.ehcache:ehcache-core) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpclient) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpcore) mvn(org.apache.httpcomponents:httpmime) mvn(org.jdom:jdom2) mvn(org.quartz-scheduler:quartz) mvn(org.slf4j:jcl-over-slf4j) mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api) thredds (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils mvn(junit:junit) thredds-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils java-udunits (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- netcdf-java: mvn(edu.ucar:netcdf) netcdf-java thredds: mvn(edu.ucar:thredds-parent) mvn(edu.ucar:thredds-parent:pom:) thredds thredds-javadoc: thredds-javadoc java-udunits: java-udunits mvn(edu.ucar:udunits) Generated by fedora-review 0.5.0 (920221d) last change: 2013-08-30 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -b 978569 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, SugarActivity, Perl, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EPEL5, EXARCH, DISTTAG ##### APPROVED!!!
Thanks! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: thredds Short Description: Thematic Realtime Environmental Distributed Data Services (TDS) Owners: gil Branches: f19 f20 InitialCC: java-sig
Git done (by process-git-requests).
Thanks!
thredds-4.3.19-4.fc19 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 19. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/thredds-4.3.19-4.fc19
thredds-4.3.19-5.fc20 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 20. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/thredds-4.3.19-5.fc20
thredds-4.3.19-5.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 testing repository.
thredds-4.3.19-5.fc20 has been pushed to the Fedora 20 stable repository.
thredds-4.3.19-4.fc19 has been pushed to the Fedora 19 stable repository.