[Bug 1163724] Review Request: gpars - Groovy Parallel Systems
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Nov 13 15:36:46 UTC 2014
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1163724
--- Comment #2 from Michael Simacek <msimacek at redhat.com> ---
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- Unowned directory %{_javadir}/gpars
- The bundled source for extra166y. Even though the code doesn't use it,
it's still built and installed.
- There are bundled jars. They are probably not used, but I'd prefer
them to be removed in %prep
- artwork directory contains icons under cc-by-nc-nd. They should also
be removed to ensure they don't end up somewhere
- There is a book with examples, do you know anything about it's
licensing? I know it's not installed, but I'm not sure whether it
should be in the SRPM at all.
- gpars.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programing ->
programming
===== 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". 25 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/msimacek/reviews/1163724-gpars/licensecheck.txt
[x]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must
be documented in the spec.
[!]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/java/gpars, /usr/share/maven-
poms/gpars, /usr/share/maven-metadata
[!]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms/gpars,
/usr/share/java/gpars, /usr/share/maven-metadata
[?]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[?]: 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]: Package installs properly.
[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 %doc.
[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:
[!]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Note: Test run failed
[x]: 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
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[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 .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[x]: 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).
[?]: Package functions as described.
[-]: 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]: 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]: 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:
[x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is
arched.
Note: Test run failed
[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: gpars-1.2.1-0.5.fc22.noarch.rpm
gpars-1.2.1-0.5.fc22.src.rpm
gpars.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programing ->
programming, monogramming, program
gpars.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
gpars.noarch: W: invalid-url URL: http://gpars.codehaus.org timed out
gpars.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programing -> programming,
monogramming, program
gpars.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
gpars.src: W: invalid-url URL: http://gpars.codehaus.org timed out
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root at unused-4-144 /]# rpmlint gpars
gpars.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US programing ->
programming, monogramming, program
gpars.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.
]0;<mock-chroot><mock-chroot>[root at unused-4-144 /]# echo 'rpmlint-done:'
Requires
--------
gpars (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java-headless
jpackage-utils
mvn(org.codehaus.groovy:groovy-all)
mvn(org.codehaus.jcsp:jcsp)
mvn(org.codehaus.jsr166-mirror:extra166y)
mvn(org.jboss.netty:netty:3.6.6.Final)
mvn(org.multiverse:multiverse-core)
Provides
--------
gpars:
gpars
mvn(org.codehaus.gpars:gpars)
mvn(org.codehaus.gpars:gpars:pom:)
osgi(gpars.org)
Source checksums
----------------
http://github.com/GPars/GPars/archive/release-1.2.1.tar.gz :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
6e051c43cbdbab6e1195e98b52c65de79362026e50d80fb91ed4671fa6fd4c07
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
6e051c43cbdbab6e1195e98b52c65de79362026e50d80fb91ed4671fa6fd4c07
http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0.txt :
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
cfc7749b96f63bd31c3c42b5c471bf756814053e847c10f3eb003417bc523d30
Generated by fedora-review 0.5.2 (63c24cb) last change: 2014-07-14
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1163724
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