Spec URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/cdi-api1/1/cdi-api1.spec SRPM URL: http://goldmann.fedorapeople.org/package_review/cdi-api1/1/cdi-api1-1.0-10.SP4.fc19.src.rpm Fedora Account System Username: goldmann Description: APIs for JSR-299: Contexts and Dependency Injection for Java EE Koji scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=5619189 This is a compat package for cdi-api (currently version 1.1).
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - 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 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java FIXME: remove jpackage-utils references. Please, can do this at the import time. - Maven packages should use new style packaging Note: If possible update your package to latest guidelines See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Apache_Maven IGNORE: XMvn don't support -v parameter for creation of a compat package ===== 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 [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in cdi- api1-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: "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated". 4 files have unknown license. [x]: 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. [x]: 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. [x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 20480 bytes in 1 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]: 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]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [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]: Pom files have correct Maven mapping Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct or update to latest guidelines [x]: 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 [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]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [!]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [x]: 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. [x]: %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. [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 uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== 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: cdi-api1-1.0-10.SP4.fc20.noarch.rpm cdi-api1-javadoc-1.0-10.SP4.fc20.noarch.rpm cdi-api1-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados cdi-api1-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jpackage -> package, j package cdi-api1-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> tills cdi-api1-javadoc.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Group: cdi-api1-javadoc.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Requires: 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- # rpmlint cdi-api1 cdi-api1-javadoc cdi-api1-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados cdi-api1-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US jpackage -> package, j package cdi-api1-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> tills cdi-api1-javadoc.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Group: cdi-api1-javadoc.noarch: W: tag-in-description C Requires: 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. # echo 'rpmlint-done:' Requires -------- cdi-api1 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): geronimo-annotation java jboss-ejb-3.1-api jboss-el-2.2-api jboss-interceptors-1.1-api jpackage-utils cdi-api1-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- cdi-api1: cdi-api1 mvn(javax.enterprise:cdi-api:1) mvn(javax.enterprise:cdi-api:1.0-SP4) cdi-api1-javadoc: cdi-api1-javadoc Source checksums ---------------- http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30 Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 985396 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 approved see issues.
Thanks for the review! New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: cdi-api1 Short Description: CDI API 1.0 Owners: goldmann
Git done (by process-git-requests).