https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2404675
Marián Konček <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flags| |fedora-review? Assignee|[email protected] |[email protected] Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #3 from Marián Konček <[email protected]> --- = NOTES from the reviewer: == IMPORTANT: * %prep section prints .jar and .class files but does not remove them. They should be removed unless required. At least the gradle.jar should be removed. * test/resources contains zip files containing .class files with unknown licensing, I don't think we can distribute these in the source RPM. So you may have to write a `generate-tarball.sh` script. * License field is invalid SPDX expression, should be: `GPL-3.0-or-later`. * Please replace `BuildRequires: java-25-devel` with `javapackages-local-openjdk25` which is the standard form of expressing requiring Java for building packages. == LESS IMPORTANT * Consider using %autorelease since you are already using %autochangelog. * Inconsistent indentation. * Description is incomplete. * Summary could use more precise capital letters, like: `JD Java decompiler library`. * $RPM_BUILD_ROOT can be replaced with %{buildroot}. * There are trailing whitespaces after License and %description, maybe more. * Debug prints (pwd, ls) in %install sgould not be in a standard .spec. * Please unindent the code under the %build section. * Various random spaces that make no sense inside the %build section. * Backticks for subprocesses are discouraged in favor of $(). Package Review ============== Legend: [x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated [ ] = Manual review needed Issues: ======= - The License field must be a valid SPDX expression. Note: Not a valid SPDX expression 'GPL-3.0'. See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Changes/SPDX_Licenses_Phase_1 - Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage Note: No javadoc subpackage present. Note: Javadocs are optional for Fedora versions >= 21 See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink) Note: No javadoc subpackage present See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Javadoc_installation - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Note: Jar files in source (see attachment) See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Java/#_pre_built_dependencies ===== MUST items ===== Generic: [x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines. [x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. [x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. [x]: 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 [x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime. [x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names). [x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. [x]: Package does not generate any conflict. [x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target. [-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and Provides are present. [x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary. [x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English. [-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need. [x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag. [x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines [x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one supported primary architecture. [x]: Package installs properly. [x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). [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 %license. [x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x]: Package must own all directories that it creates. [x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT [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]: Dist tag is present. [x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [x]: Permissions on files are set properly. [x]: Package must not depend on deprecated() packages. [x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't work. [x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters. [x]: Package does not use a name that already exists. [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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size (~1MB) or number of files. Note: Documentation size is 4648 bytes in 1 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local Java: [x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) Maven: [-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant [x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used ===== SHOULD items ===== Generic: [-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it. [x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments). [?]: Package functions as described. [x]: Latest version is packaged. [x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream. [-]: Sources are verified with gpgverify first in %prep if upstream publishes signatures. Note: gpgverify is not used. [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files. [x]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [x]: Buildroot is not present [x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) [x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin. [x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file [x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag [x]: SourceX is a working URL. [x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. [x]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Java: [!]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.) [x]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI ===== EXTRA items ===== Generic: [!]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM. Note: Spec file as given by url is not the same as in SRPM (see attached diff). See: (this test has no URL) [x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages. Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment). Rpmlint ------- Checking: jd-core-1.1.3-0.fc44.noarch.rpm jd-core-1.1.3-0.fc44.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.6.1 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.13/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-legacy-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmpawwty7tb')] checks: 32, packages: 2 jd-core.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized jd java decompiler library jd-core.src: W: summary-not-capitalized jd java decompiler library jd-core.noarch: E: spelling-error ('decompiler', 'Summary(en_US) decompiler -> recompile, compiler') jd-core.noarch: E: spelling-error ('decompiler', '%description -l en_US decompiler -> recompile, compiler') jd-core.src: E: spelling-error ('decompiler', 'Summary(en_US) decompiler -> recompile, compiler') jd-core.src: E: spelling-error ('decompiler', '%description -l en_US decompiler -> recompile, compiler') jd-core.spec: W: no-%check-section jd-core.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0 jd-core.src: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0 jd-core.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.3-1 ['1.1.3-0.fc44', '1.1.3-0'] 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 4 errors, 6 warnings, 9 filtered, 4 badness; has taken 0.3 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.7.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.14/site-packages/rpmlint/configdefaults.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora-spdx-licenses.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/fedora.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/scoring.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/users-groups.toml /etc/xdg/rpmlint/warn-on-functions.toml checks: 32, packages: 1 jd-core.noarch: W: summary-not-capitalized jd java decompiler library jd-core.noarch: E: spelling-error ('decompiler', 'Summary(en_US) decompiler -> recompile, compiler') jd-core.noarch: E: spelling-error ('decompiler', '%description -l en_US decompiler -> recompile, compiler') jd-core.noarch: W: invalid-license GPL-3.0 jd-core.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.1.3-1 ['1.1.3-0.fc44', '1.1.3-0'] 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 2 errors, 3 warnings, 5 filtered, 2 badness; has taken 0.1 s -- You are receiving this mail because: You are always notified about changes to this product and component You are on the CC list for the bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2404675 Report this comment as SPAM: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202404675%23c3 -- _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected] Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue
