Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in ecj-native See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation ===== MUST items ===== C/C++: [ ]: Development (unversioned) .so files in -devel subpackage, if present. Note: Unversioned so-files in private %_libdir subdirectory (see attachment). Verify they are not in ld path. Generic: [ ]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise. [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: 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 [ ]: 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 ecj-native [ ]: 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). [ ]: 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. [ ]: Useful -debuginfo package or justification otherwise. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files. [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]: 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 Maven: [ ]: Pom files have correct add_maven_depmap call Note: Some add_maven_depmap calls found. Please check if they are correct [ ]: 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: [!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [!]: Spec use %global instead of %define. Note: %define with_gcjbootstrap %{!?_with_gcjbootstrap:0}%{?_with_gcjbootstrap:1} %define without_gcjbootstrap %{?_with_gcjbootstrap:0}%{!?_with_gcjbootstrap:1} [ ]: 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]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: Dist tag is present. [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: SourceX is a working URL. Java: [ ]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [ ]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [ ]: Large data in /usr/share should live in a noarch subpackage if package is arched. Note: Arch-ed rpms have a total of 1597440 bytes in /usr/share 1597440 ecj-4.2.1-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm Rpmlint ------- Checking: ecj-4.2.1-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm ecj-native-4.2.1-3.fc19.x86_64.rpm ecj.x86_64: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US bytecode -> byte code, byte-code, decorate ecj.x86_64: E: no-binary ecj.x86_64: W: no-manual-page-for-binary ecj ecj-native.x86_64: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 3 warnings. Requires -------- ecj-native (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh ecj java-gcj-compat libc.so.6()(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rtld(GNU_HASH) ecj (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh Provides -------- ecj-native: ecj-native ecj-native(x86-64) ecj.jar.so()(64bit) ecj: ecj ecj(x86-64) eclipse-ecj mvn(org.eclipse.jdt:core) mvn(org.eclipse.tycho:org.eclipse.jdt.core) osgi(org.eclipse.jdt.core.compiler.batch.source) Unversioned so-files -------------------- ecj-native: /usr/lib64/gcj/ecj/ecj.jar.so MD5-sum check ------------- http://download.eclipse.org/eclipse/downloads/drops4/R-4.2.1-201209141800/ecjsrc-4.2.1.jar : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d261b2158f598640f1923805d2e9bf47eb21d8333f4e1b37f59f847ad00d48f4 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d261b2158f598640f1923805d2e9bf47eb21d8333f4e1b37f59f847ad00d48f4 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 ecj -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -x CheckRpmlintInstalled,CheckApprovedLicense,CheckContainsLicenseText,CheckLicenseField,CheckLicenseUpstream,CheckReqPkgConfig,CheckBuildCompleted,CheckPackageInstalls,CheckNoNameConflict,CheckBuild,CheckBuildRequires