[Bug 1002704] Review Request: boilerpipe - Boilerplate Removal and Fulltext Extraction from HTML pages
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Oct 19 08:06:12 UTC 2013
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1002704
Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|ASSIGNED |POST
Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #2 from Björn "besser82" Esser <bjoern.esser at gmail.com> ---
Package has one small issue. No blockers :)
#####
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
Issues:
=======
- Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
---> please add them as BuildRequires during import.
===== 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". 10 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/besser82/shared/fedora/review/1002704-boilerpipe/licensecheck.txt
---> License-tag is fine. :)
[x]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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 10240 bytes in 2 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
---> missing `BuildRequires: jpackage-utils`.
Can be fixed during import.
[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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 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]: 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]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in boilerpipe-
javadoc
---> False positive. Documentation should have no Requires
on main-pkg.
[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.
[-]: 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.
---> no testsuite available.
[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 (not strictly required in GL).
[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 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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: boilerpipe-1.2.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
boilerpipe-javadoc-1.2.0-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
boilerpipe-1.2.0-1.fc21.src.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint boilerpipe-javadoc boilerpipe
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
boilerpipe-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jpackage-utils
boilerpipe (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java
javapackages-tools
jpackage-utils
nekohtml
Provides
--------
boilerpipe-javadoc:
boilerpipe-javadoc
boilerpipe:
boilerpipe
mvn(de.l3s.boilerpipe:boilerpipe)
Source checksums
----------------
http://boilerpipe.googlecode.com/files/boilerpipe-1.2.0-src.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
b87ce6e374081a417bf54016fda504b174445c6c9a275c73735c00b85f7080b4
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
b87ce6e374081a417bf54016fda504b174445c6c9a275c73735c00b85f7080b4
http://boilerpipe.googlecode.com/svn/repo/de/l3s/boilerpipe/boilerpipe/1.2.0/boilerpipe-1.2.0.pom
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
e25b1effb6835042e98e8f0e1f60c5c0cf8ef7339422b47df7b6d92605d546c0
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
e25b1effb6835042e98e8f0e1f60c5c0cf8ef7339422b47df7b6d92605d546c0
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 1002704
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!!!
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
More information about the package-review
mailing list