Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro - Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: No add_maven_depmap calls found but pom files present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro - Packages use %{_mavenpomdir} instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#add_maven_depmap_macro - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: Found deprecated versioned javadoc paths /usr/share/javadoc/bsh-1.3.0/* See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - update-desktop-database is invoked when required Note: desktop file(s) in bsh-utils See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:ScriptletSnippets#Icon_Cache - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in bsh-manual, bsh- demo, bsh-utils See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4 Note: %defattr present but not needed [ ]: Development files must be in a -devel package [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [ ]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch. [ ]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in bsh-manual , bsh-javadoc , bsh-demo , bsh-utils [ ]: 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. [ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [ ]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory names). [ ]: If the package is under multiple licenses, the licensing breakdown must be documented in the spec. [ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [ ]: Package does not generate any conflict. [ ]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [ ]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [ ]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [ ]: gtk-update-icon-cache is invoked when required Note: icons in bsh-utils [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 788480 bytes in 54 files. [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 contains desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x]: Package installs a %{name}.desktop using desktop-file-install if there is such a file. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [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 [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Java: [ ]: 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 have Requires: jpackage-utils Maven: [ ]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [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 ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [ ]: Buildroot is not present Note: Buildroot: present but not needed [ ]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) Note: %clean present but not required [ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [ ]: Package functions as described. [ ]: Latest version is packaged. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: Scriptlets must be sane, if used. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: 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. [ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Dist tag is present. [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. Java: [ ]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [ ]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [x]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Rpmlint ------- Checking: bsh-1.3.0-22.fc19.noarch.rpm bsh-manual-1.3.0-22.fc19.noarch.rpm bsh-javadoc-1.3.0-22.fc19.noarch.rpm bsh-demo-1.3.0-22.fc19.noarch.rpm bsh-utils-1.3.0-22.fc19.noarch.rpm bsh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US embeddable -> embedded bsh.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US extensibility -> sensibility, extensible bsh-utils.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized C bsh utilities bsh-utils.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided bsh bsh-utils.noarch: W: no-documentation bsh-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bshdoc bsh-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bsh-desktop bsh-utils.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary bsh 5 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings. Requires -------- bsh-manual (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): bsh-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils bsh (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh bsf java jpackage-utils bsh-demo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /usr/bin/env bsh bsh-utils (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh bsh jline Provides -------- bsh-manual: bsh-manual bsh-javadoc: bsh-javadoc bsh: bsh mvn(bsh:bsh) mvn(bsh:bsh-bsf) mvn(org.beanshell:bsh) bsh-demo: bsh-demo bsh-utils: bsh-desktop bsh-utils Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (903b443) last change: 2012-12-20 Buildroot used: fedora-raw-x86_64 Command line :/home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/try-fedora-review -rpn bsh -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -x CheckRpmlintInstalled,CheckApprovedLicense,CheckContainsLicenseText,CheckLicenseField,CheckLicenseUpstream,CheckReqPkgConfig,CheckBuildCompleted,CheckPackageInstalls,CheckNoNameConflict,CheckBuild,CheckBuildRequires