[Bug 818943] Review Request: jtds - SQL Server and Sybase JDBC driver
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Jul 23 10:20:40 UTC 2012
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=818943
--- Comment #4 from Tomas Radej <tradej at redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Key:
- = N/A
x = Pass
! = Fail
? = Not evaluated
==== Generic ====
[x]: EXTRA Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: EXTRA Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
[!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at
least one supported primary architecture.
[x]: MUST %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: MUST All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any
that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Buildroot is not present
Note: Unless packager wants to package for EPEL5 this is fine
[!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: MUST Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: MUST Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
Note: Clean would be needed if support for EPEL is required
[!]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: MUST Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
Note: Note: defattr macros not found. They would be needed for EPEL5
[x]: MUST Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: MUST Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: MUST Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: MUST Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: MUST Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[x]: MUST Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: MUST Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: MUST Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: MUST Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[x]: MUST Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
Note: rm -rf would be needed if support for EPEL5 is required
[-]: MUST Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: MUST 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.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
[x]: MUST License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: MUST Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[x]: MUST Package is named using only allowed ascii characters.
[x]: MUST Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: MUST Package does not generate any conflict.
Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: MUST Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[x]: MUST Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]: MUST Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: MUST Package installs properly.
[x]: MUST Package is not relocatable.
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: MUST Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: MUST Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL.
[x]: MUST Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: MUST Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[-]: MUST Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: MUST File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: SHOULD Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[-]: SHOULD 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]: SHOULD Dist tag is present.
[x]: SHOULD No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin,
/usr/sbin.
[x]: SHOULD Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
--requires).
[x]: SHOULD Package functions as described.
[x]: SHOULD Latest version is packaged.
[x]: SHOULD Package does not include license text files separate from
upstream.
[x]: SHOULD Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SHOULD SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: SHOULD Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: SHOULD Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures.
[-]: SHOULD %check is present and all tests pass.
[x]: SHOULD Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed
files.
[x]: SHOULD Spec use %global instead of %define.
==== Java ====
[x]: MUST If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x]: MUST Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: MUST Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: MUST Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: MUST Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version}
symlink)
[x]: SHOULD Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]: SHOULD Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
==== Maven ====
[x]: MUST Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call
Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct
[x]: MUST Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: MUST Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: MUST If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps)
even when building with ant
[x]: MUST Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: MUST Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: jtds-1.2.5-1.fc16.src.rpm
jtds-javadoc-1.2.5-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
jtds-1.2.5-1.fc16.noarch.rpm
jtds.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scrollable -> scroll able,
scroll-able, Scrabble
jtds.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US updateable -> update able,
update-able, update
jtds-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/jtds-javadoc-1.2.5/LICENSE
jtds.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US scrollable -> scroll able,
scroll-able, Scrabble
jtds.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US updateable -> update able,
update-able, update
jtds.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jtds-1.2.5/LICENSE
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 4 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint jtds
jtds.noarch: I: enchant-dictionary-not-found en_US
jtds.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://jtds.sourceforge.net/ HTTP Error 503:
Service Unavailable
jtds.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/jtds-1.2.5/LICENSE
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
jtds-javadoc-1.2.5-1.fc16.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jpackage-utils
jtds-1.2.5-1.fc16.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java
jcifs
jpackage-utils
Provides
--------
jtds-javadoc-1.2.5-1.fc16.noarch.rpm:
jtds-javadoc = 1.2.5-1.fc16
jtds-1.2.5-1.fc16.noarch.rpm:
jtds = 1.2.5-1.fc16
mvn(net.sourceforge.jtds:jtds)
MD5-sum check
-------------
http://sourceforge.net/projects/jtds/files/jtds/1.2.5/jtds-1.2.5-src.zip :
MD5SUM this package : ec6ecc7c7af9c177e5f52d24faedca91
MD5SUM upstream package : ec6ecc7c7af9c177e5f52d24faedca91
Generated by fedora-review 0.2.0 (53cc903) last change: 2012-07-09
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 818943
External plugins:
ISSUES:
[!]: MUST Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[!]: MUST Package contains no bundled libraries.
[!]: MUST Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[!]: MUST Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
>>>> In lib, there are binary files clearly from different projects. It is
>>>> necessary to determine the license of each of them and remove those,
>>>> whose licensing terms prohibit redistribution without source
>>>> code. That means removing them prior to packaging, according to
>>>> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#When_Upstream_uses_Prohibited_Code .
>>>> Also, there are some DLLs apparently for Windows machines.
>>>> If any of the aforementioned files is necessary and can not be built
>>>> from source (i. e. in a separate package), this package may not be
>>>> included in Fedora.
[!]: MUST License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
>>>> The project contains several files with a licence different from LGPL:
>>>> Namely:
>>>> main/net/sourceforge/jtds/util/MD5Digest.java: MIT/X11 (BSD like)
>>>> main/net/sourceforge/jtds/util/GeneralDigest.java: MIT/X11 (BSD like)
>>>> main/net/sourceforge/jtds/util/MD4Digest.java: MIT/X11 (BSD like)
>>>> main/net/sourceforge/jtds/util/MD5Digest.java: MIT/X11 (BSD like)
>>>> main/net/sourceforge/jtds/util/GeneralDigest.java: MIT/X11 (BSD like)
>>>> main/net/sourceforge/jtds/util/MD4Digest.java: MIT/X11 (BSD like)
>>>> Please, add this licence to the License field in spec
[!]: MUST Requires correct, justified where necessary.
>>>> Requires on zip is unnecessary, please, remove it
[!]: Rpmlint
>>>> The licence file has the old FSF address (see Rpmlint output), please
>>>> notify upstream about it.
*** NOT APPROVED ***
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list