Package Review ============== Key: [x] = Pass [!] = Fail [-] = Not applicable [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in jcifs-demo See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [ ]: Changelog in prescribed format. [ ]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. [ ]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time. Note: Macros in: jcifs (summary) [ ]: 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 jcifs- javadoc , jcifs-demo [ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [ ]: 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. [ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 378880 bytes in 21 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]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags. [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 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]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils [x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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 tarball generation or download is documented. [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: jcifs-1.3.17-6.fc19.noarch.rpm jcifs-javadoc-1.3.17-6.fc19.noarch.rpm jcifs-demo-1.3.17-6.fc19.noarch.rpm jcifs.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US workgroup -> work group, work-group, groundwork jcifs-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados jcifs-demo.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/jcifs/examples/ThreadedSmbCrawler.java jcifs-demo.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/jcifs/examples/T2Crawler.java jcifs-demo.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address /usr/share/jcifs/examples/SmbShell.java 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 2 warnings. Requires -------- jcifs (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): java jpackage-utils tomcat-servlet-3.0-api jcifs-demo (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jcifs jcifs-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): jpackage-utils Provides -------- jcifs: jcifs mvn(jcifs:jcifs) mvn(org.samba.jcifs:jcifs) osgi(jcifs) jcifs-demo: jcifs-demo jcifs-javadoc: jcifs-javadoc MD5-sum check ------------- http://jcifs.samba.org/src/jcifs-1.3.17.tgz : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : b6c5d82ed0bc015986206101a908eacd96bca8915187a092e34ebb373eeb545d CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : b6c5d82ed0bc015986206101a908eacd96bca8915187a092e34ebb373eeb545d http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/maven2/jcifs/jcifs/1.3.17/jcifs-1.3.17.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : d5902df94bc5ff4dd6b014f5dfffa58ff2c9dd882cf49a6ad1431b7e0e7381df CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : d5902df94bc5ff4dd6b014f5dfffa58ff2c9dd882cf49a6ad1431b7e0e7381df 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 jcifs -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -x CheckRpmlintInstalled,CheckApprovedLicense,CheckContainsLicenseText,CheckLicenseField,CheckLicenseUpstream,CheckReqPkgConfig,CheckBuildCompleted,CheckPackageInstalls,CheckNoNameConflict,CheckBuild,CheckBuildRequires