[Bug 957544] Review Request: java-base64 - Java class for encoding and decoding Base64 notation
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Wed May 1 23:07:06 UTC 2013
Product: Fedora
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=957544
--- Comment #3 from Orion Poplawski <orion at cora.nwra.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- 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
I understand you are keeping old style for F18 compat. Fine by me.
- Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Note: No /usr/share/javadoc/java-base64 found
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation
Need a symlink. Also for the jar file:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames :
If the package provides a single JAR and the filename provided by the build is
neither %{name}-%{version}.jar nor %{name}.jar then this file MUST be installed
as %{name}.jar and a symbolic link with the usual name must be provided.
- 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
I can go eiher way.
===== 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 java-
base64-javadoc
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[-]: 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]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"Unknown or generated". 2 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
licensecheck in /export/home/orion/redhat/java-base64-2.3.8/957544-java-
base64/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.
[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.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[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]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[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]: 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.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[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 tarball generation or download is documented.
[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: java-base64-2.3.8-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
java-base64-javadoc-2.3.8-1.fc20.noarch.rpm
java-base64.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint java-base64-javadoc java-base64
java-base64.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
java-base64-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jpackage-utils
java-base64 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java
jpackage-utils
Provides
--------
java-base64-javadoc:
java-base64-javadoc
java-base64:
base64
java-base64
mvn(net.iharder:base64)
Source checksums
----------------
https://github.com/omalley/base64/archive/release-2.3.8.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
d86c7c0959733a3262bf88fc426507be9d1867050fe11c4bdb6a42776d5e16a5
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
d86c7c0959733a3262bf88fc426507be9d1867050fe11c4bdb6a42776d5e16a5
Generated by fedora-review 0.4.1 (b2e211f) last change: 2013-04-29
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 957544 -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=qw8EnQa2A8&a=cc_unsubscribe
More information about the package-review
mailing list