[Bug 1159976] Review Request: extra166y - Concurrency JSR-166 - Collections supporting parallel operations
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Nov 4 14:57:03 UTC 2014
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1159976
Michael Simacek <msimacek at redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |msimacek at redhat.com
Assignee|nobody at fedoraproject.org |msimacek at redhat.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Michael Simacek <msimacek at redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Please provide more appropriate description. The one you have
describes the mirror, not the software itself.
- Use http://gee.cs.oswego.edu/dl/concurrency-interest as upstream URL
instead of URL of the mirror
- You removed the sources of parts we don't need, is there any reason to
keep the tests for those parts?
- I don't see GPLv2 anywhere in the code, only in the tests, which don't
end up in binary RPM, so it shouldn't be in the license tag.
===== 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]: 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
"*No copyright* GPL (v2)", "Unknown or generated". 208 files have unknown
license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/msimacek/reviews/1159976-extra166y/licensecheck.txt
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-metadata
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: 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.
[x]: 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.
[x]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Note: Test run failed
[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]: 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]: 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.
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Test run failed
[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)
Maven:
[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 DO 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 extra166y-
javadoc
[?]: 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.
[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.
[?]: 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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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.
Java:
[x]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)
[x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
===== EXTRA items =====
Generic:
[?]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Test run failed
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: extra166y-1.7.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
extra166y-javadoc-1.7.0-1.fc22.noarch.rpm
extra166y-1.7.0-1.fc22.src.rpm
extra166y.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Codehaus -> Wodehouse
extra166y.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Codehaus -> Wodehouse
extra166y.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jsr166-1.7.0.tar.xz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Requires
--------
extra166y-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
jpackage-utils
extra166y (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java-headless
jpackage-utils
Provides
--------
extra166y-javadoc:
extra166y-javadoc
extra166y:
extra166y
mvn(org.codehaus.jsr166-mirror:extra166y)
mvn(org.codehaus.jsr166-mirror:extra166y:pom:)
osgi(extra166y)
Source checksums
----------------
http://repository.codehaus.org/org/codehaus/jsr166-mirror/extra166y/1.7.0/extra166y-1.7.0.pom
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
ddd61bc1c6bc35b9ee47a49031449bdb606557f309b5b688cc20a6630a780627
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
ddd61bc1c6bc35b9ee47a49031449bdb606557f309b5b688cc20a6630a780627
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1159976
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R,
PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
More information about the package-review
mailing list