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 - Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Note: Upstream MD5sum check error, diff is in /data/temp/rhel-reviews/xml- commons-apis-1.4.01-9.fc19/xml-commons-apis/diff.txt See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL - Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. Note: Missing: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} in xml-commons- apis-manual See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#RequiringBasePackage - Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java - Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Note: Documentation size is 3215360 bytes in 221 files. See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#PackageDocumentation ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [ ]: 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 xml- commons-apis-manual , xml-commons-apis-javadoc [ ]: 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. [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]: 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]: 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: Can't find any BUILD directory (--prebuilt option?) [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage [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]: 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. [ ]: 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]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [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. [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: xml-commons-apis-1.4.01-9.fc19.noarch.rpm xml-commons-apis-manual-1.4.01-9.fc19.noarch.rpm xml-commons-apis-javadoc-1.4.01-9.fc19.noarch.rpm xml-commons-apis.noarch: E: useless-provides mvn(xml-apis:xml-apis) xml-commons-apis-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%pre rm 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 1 warnings. Requires -------- xml-commons-apis-manual (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): xml-commons-apis (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh java jpackage-utils xml-commons-apis-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh Provides -------- xml-commons-apis-manual: xml-commons-apis-manual xml-commons-apis: mvn(xerces:dom3-xml-apis) mvn(xml-apis:xml-apis) mvn(xml-apis:xml-apis-ext) osgi(javax.xml) osgi(org.w3c.dom.svg) xml-commons xml-commons-apis xml-commons-jaxp-1.3-apis xml-commons-apis-javadoc: xml-commons-apis-javadoc MD5-sum check ------------- http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/xml-apis/xml-apis/2.0.2/xml-apis-2.0.2.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : a902d962402c02f4c1a57c5a2303a608a8ac3aef5cd145e1980563447603d606 CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : a902d962402c02f4c1a57c5a2303a608a8ac3aef5cd145e1980563447603d606 http://repo1.maven.org/maven2/xml-apis/xml-apis-ext/1.3.04/xml-apis-ext-1.3.04.pom : CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package : 17c19fe2a28d35bdcbd8d0cc18bcc0ed95d397fd872252a190f096afad83b51c CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 1b5939a9310a59c0df0c03726721d5fc9521e87d6c203bfa7220bae82a30d9e8 diff -r also reports differences Generated by fedora-review 0.4.0 (ae19e1e) last change: 2013-01-28 Buildroot used: fedora-raw-x86_64 Command line :/home/w0rm/work/projects/fedora-review/try-fedora-review -rpn xml-commons-apis -m fedora-rawhide-x86_64 -v -x CheckRpmlintInstalled,CheckApprovedLicense,CheckContainsLicenseText,CheckLicenseField,CheckLicenseUpstream,CheckReqPkgConfig,CheckBuildCompleted,CheckPackageInstalls,CheckNoNameConflict,CheckBuild,CheckBuildRequires