https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2422243
Bug ID: 2422243
Summary: Review Request: maven-reporting-exec - <short summary
here>
Product: Fedora
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Status: NEW
Component: Package Review
Severity: medium
Priority: medium
Assignee: [email protected]
Reporter: [email protected]
QA Contact: [email protected]
CC: [email protected]
Target Milestone: ---
Classification: Fedora
Spec URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-reporting-exec.spec
SRPM URL:
https://kathenas.fedorapeople.org/development/fedora/rawhide/for_review/maven-reporting-exec-2.0.0-1.el9.src.rpm
Description:
This is a review *template*. Besides handling the [ ]-marked tests you are
also supposed to fix the template before pasting into bugzilla:
- Add issues you find to the list of issues on top. If there isn't such
a list, create one.
- Add your own remarks to the template checks.
- Add new lines marked [!] or [?] when you discover new things not
listed by fedora-review.
- Change or remove any text in the template which is plain wrong. In this
case you could also file a bug against fedora-review
- Remove the "[ ] Manual check required", you will not have any such lines
in what you paste.
- Remove attachments which you deem not really useful (the rpmlint
ones are mandatory, though)
- Remove this text
Package Review
==============
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
Issues:
=======
- 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.
Note: License file ADDITIONAL_LICENSE_INFO is not marked as %license
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/LicensingGuidelines/#_license_text
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/maven-reporting-exec
See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging-
guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names
===== MUST items =====
Generic:
[ ]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least
one supported primary architecture.
Note: Using prebuilt packages
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0 and/or MIT License", "*No
copyright* Apache License 2.0", "Unknown or generated". 1 files have
unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr-
rpmbuild/results/maven-reporting-exec/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[ ]: 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 uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (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.
[ ]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
Note: There are rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[x]: The License field must be a valid SPDX expression.
[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 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 2619 bytes in 2 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools
(jpackage-utils)
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
is pulled in by maven-local
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: javapackages-tools
(jpackage-utils)
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[ ]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: POM files have correct Maven mapping
[x]: Maven packages should use new style packaging
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO 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 .mfiles file list instead of %{_datadir}/maven2/poms
===== SHOULD items =====
Generic:
[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: 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]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
[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]: 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:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
Note: No rpmlint messages.
Rpmlint
-------
Checking: maven-reporting-exec-2.0.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
maven-reporting-exec-javadoc-2.0.0-1.fc44.noarch.rpm
maven-reporting-exec-2.0.0-1.fc44.src.rpm
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
configuration:
/usr/lib/python3.13/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
rpmlintrc: [PosixPath('/tmp/tmp9x2apw_p')]
checks: 32, packages: 3
maven-reporting-exec-javadoc.noarch: W: package-with-huge-docs 98%
maven-reporting-exec.spec: W: no-%check-section
maven-reporting-exec-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-reporting-exec/copy.svg
maven-reporting-exec-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-reporting-exec/legal/LICENSE
maven-reporting-exec-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-reporting-exec/link.svg
maven-reporting-exec-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-reporting-exec/script.js
maven-reporting-exec-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-reporting-exec/search-page.js
maven-reporting-exec-javadoc.noarch: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/javadoc/maven-reporting-exec/search.js
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 6 errors, 2 warnings, 11 filtered, 6
badness; has taken 0.2 s
Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "maven-reporting-exec-javadoc".
(none): E: there is no installed rpm "maven-reporting-exec".
There are no files to process nor additional arguments.
Nothing to do, aborting.
============================ rpmlint session starts
============================
rpmlint: 2.8.0
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: 2
0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0
badness; has taken 0.0 s
Source checksums
----------------
https://downloads.apache.org/maven/reporting/maven-reporting-exec-2.0.0-source-release.zip
:
CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package :
f6a7dc5a6f842e82b7175f985a7cf29ce24e5f6481ec3d13206742e5661855d9
CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package :
f6a7dc5a6f842e82b7175f985a7cf29ce24e5f6481ec3d13206742e5661855d9
Requires
--------
maven-reporting-exec (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
java-headless
javapackages-filesystem
mvn(javax.inject:javax.inject)
mvn(org.apache.maven.doxia:doxia-sink-api)
mvn(org.apache.maven.reporting:maven-reporting-api)
mvn(org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-api)
mvn(org.apache.maven.resolver:maven-resolver-util)
mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-classworlds)
mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-utils:4.0.1)
mvn(org.codehaus.plexus:plexus-xml)
mvn(org.slf4j:slf4j-api)
maven-reporting-exec-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
javapackages-filesystem
Provides
--------
maven-reporting-exec:
maven-reporting-exec
mvn(org.apache.maven.reporting:maven-reporting-exec)
mvn(org.apache.maven.reporting:maven-reporting-exec:pom:)
maven-reporting-exec-javadoc:
maven-reporting-exec-javadoc
Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24
Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name
maven-reporting-exec --mock-config
/var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-x86_64
Active plugins: Shell-api, Java, Generic
Disabled plugins: fonts, PHP, SugarActivity, C/C++, R, Perl, Ocaml, Haskell,
Python
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH
Fedora Account System Username: kathenas
--
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=2422243
Report this comment as SPAM:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/enter_bug.cgi?product=Bugzilla&format=report-spam&short_desc=Report%20of%20Bug%202422243%23c0
--
_______________________________________________
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
