[Bug 750902] Review Request: sleep - Multi-paradigm scripting language for Java

Wed Nov 23 16:38:32 UTC 2011

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=750902

--- Comment #2 from Jaromír Cápík <jcapik at redhat.com> 2011-11-23 11:38:31 EST ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output:

$ rpmlint sleep-2.1-1.fc17.noarch.rpm
sleep.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti
sleep.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
sleep.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/doc/sleep-2.1/license.txt
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

$ rpmlint sleep-2.1-1.fc17.src.rpm 
sleep.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Multi -> Mulch, Mufti
sleep.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US multi -> mulch, mufti
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[!]  Buildroot definition is not present
[x]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[!]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.

License type: LGPLv2

Issue:
Some source files contain BSD license statements. 
Some files contain the following:
  This software is distributed under the artistic license.

Please, clarify this issue with upstream.

[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.
[?]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.

MD5SUM this package     : 1eaa4c491663d81a25e58a4f5e4ee895
MD5SUM upstream package : 1eaa4c491663d81a25e58a4f5e4ee895

[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates or must require other
packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[!]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[!]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[!]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[?]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[!]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[?]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-]  Package uses %global not %define
[-]  If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x]  If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-]  pom file has correct add_maven_depmap

=== Maven ===
[-]  Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-]  If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-]  If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven.local.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
[x]  Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]  Packages DOES NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on
jpackage-utils for %update_maven_depmap macro

=== Other suggestions ===
[x]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.

Tested on : fedora-rawhide-x86_64

=== Issues ===
1. Rpmlint output - FSF address is allowed to be patched
2. Buildroot definition IS present
3. Licensing - please, clarify the statements mixture in the source file
headers with upstream
4. File sections CONTAIN %defattr(-,root,root,-)
5. Package HAS a %clean section which contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT)
6. Javadoc documentation files are NOT generated 
7. Package IS MISSING BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils

=== Final Notes ===
1. Please, submit a bug in the sleep upstream tracker against missing Maven
support.

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.