This is a tracker bug for Java related packages problems, reviews and everything else the SIG should look at.
Please remove fixed bugs to keep the bug on current problems.
Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Package installs properly. Note: Installation errors (see attachment) See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [x]: Package does not contain kernel modules. [!]: Package contains no static executables. [x]: Header files in -devel subpackage, if present. [x]: ldconfig called in %post and %postun if required. [x]: Package does not contain any libtool archives (.la) [x]: Rpath absent or only used for internal libs. [x]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. 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: "GPL (unversioned/unknown version)", "Unknown or generated". 457 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /home/gil/1276831-tth/licensecheck.txt [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: Changelog in prescribed format. [?]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: 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. [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. [?]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [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 757760 bytes in 32 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]: 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]: 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]: 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 use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Uses parallel make %{?_smp_mflags} macro. make manual ? [-]: 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 tth-tex , tth-libs , tth-devel , tth-debuginfo [x]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [x]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [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. [?]: %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]: 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. ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: Mock build failed See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#rpmlint [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. Installation errors ------------------- INFO: mock.py version 1.2.13 starting (python version = 3.4.3)... Start: init plugins INFO: selinux enabled Finish: init plugins Start: run Start: chroot init INFO: calling preinit hooks INFO: enabled root cache INFO: enabled dnf cache Start: cleaning dnf metadata Finish: cleaning dnf metadata INFO: enabled ccache Mock Version: 1.2.13 INFO: Mock Version: 1.2.13 Finish: chroot init INFO: installing package(s): /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-tex-4.08-1.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-libs-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-devel-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-debuginfo-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-debuginfo-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm ERROR: Command failed. See logs for output. # /usr/bin/dnf --installroot /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/root/ --releasever 24 install /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-tex-4.08-1.fc24.noarch.rpm /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-libs-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-devel-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-debuginfo-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm /home/gil/1276831-tth/results/tth-debuginfo-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm --setopt=tsflags=nocontexts Rpmlint ------- Checking: tth-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm tth-tex-4.08-1.fc24.noarch.rpm tth-libs-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm tth-devel-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm tth-debuginfo-4.08-1.fc24.i686.rpm tth-4.08-1.fc24.src.rpm tth.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tthrfcat tth.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tthprep tth.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tth-numbering tth.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tth-structure tth.i686: W: no-manual-page-for-binary tthsplit tth-tex.noarch: W: no-documentation tth-tex.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/licenses/tth-tex/GPL2.txt tth-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libttm.so.0.0.0 exit tth-libs.i686: W: shared-lib-calls-exit /usr/lib/libtth.so.0.0.0 exit tth-libs.i686: W: no-documentation 6 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 9 warnings. Requires -------- tth-tex (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/mktexlsr tex(tex) texlive-base tth (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/bash /bin/sh coreutils ghostscript-core libc.so.6 netpbm-progs rtld(GNU_HASH) tex(color.sty) tex(epsfig.sty) tex(fullpage.sty) tex(graphicx.sty) tex(hyperref.sty) tex(makeidx.sty) tex(natbib.sty) tex-bibtex tex-cm tex-dvips tex-latex-bin tex-makeindex tth-tex tth-devel (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): libtth.so.0 libttm.so.0 tth-libs tth-libs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /sbin/ldconfig coreutils ghostscript-core libc.so.6 netpbm-progs rtld(GNU_HASH) tex(color.sty) tex(epsfig.sty) tex(fullpage.sty) tex(graphicx.sty) tex(hyperref.sty) tex(makeidx.sty) tex(natbib.sty) tex-bibtex tex-cm tex-dvips tex-latex-bin tex-makeindex tth-tex tth-debuginfo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): Provides -------- tth-tex: tth-tex tth: tth tth(x86-32) tth-devel: tth-devel tth-devel(x86-32) tth-libs: libtth.so.0 libttm.so.0 tth-libs tth-libs(x86-32) tth-debuginfo: tth-debuginfo tth-debuginfo(x86-32) Source checksums ---------------- http://downloads.sourceforge.net/tth/tth4.08.tar.gz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 3ad5cde189bd2a1b621403b26b136cb20fab9b4e844ebb71e311bee553c52724 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 3ad5cde189bd2a1b621403b26b136cb20fab9b4e844ebb71e311bee553c52724 Generated by fedora-review 0.6.0 (3c5c9d7) last change: 2015-05-20 Command line :/bin/fedora-review -b 1276831 -m fedora-rawhide-i386 Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386 Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, C/C++ Disabled plugins: Java, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby Disabled flags: EXARCH, DISTTAG, EPEL5, BATCH, EPEL6
Sorry!
Active SIG members use https://teams.fedoraproject.org/project/java-package-maintainer-sig/kanban
Since Kanban is not used anymore, Could this bug be used for tracking java related reviews again?
(In reply to Didik Supriadi from comment #5) > Since Kanban is not used anymore, Could this bug be used for tracking java > related reviews again? Sure! We can start using it again.
As someone that has used tracking bugs upstream for more than a decade - it's far more constructive to have one such tracking bug per release as it gives better view of what is really being worked on rather than abstract poluted by too many years of changes bug. As I'm not doing anything here I'm just sharing my experience nothing more :)
This tracker is used mostly for package reviews, which are not tied to any particular Fedora release. Moreover, this bug is not used very often these days, so it's easy to see what is going on. In case this bug starts to be frequently used again, we can split it into more tracker bugs - per release, per area of interest or in some other way.