https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=2404675
--- Comment #4 from jiri vanek <[email protected]> --- Thanx a lot for careful review! All should be fixed. (In reply to Marián Konček from comment #3) > = 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. Thanx! All removed now in prep. That should be ok. Except gradle.jar it is testing data nad tests do not run. Afiak it is ok to leave them in sources. > * License field is invalid SPDX expression, should be: `GPL-3.0-or-later`. fixed > * Please replace `BuildRequires: java-25-devel` with > `javapackages-local-openjdk25` which is the standard form of expressing > requiring Java for building packages. fixed... but javapackages-local-openjdk25 is available only in f43 onwards. For older java-25-devele must be used anyway. > > == LESS IMPORTANT > * Consider using %autorelease since you are already using %autochangelog. Pleas no. Autorelease had bitten me to often. Great feature was unluckily implemnted in weird way. > * Inconsistent indentation. Fixed with bwest intentions, hope yu will find it satisfying. > * Description is incomplete. fixed > * Summary could use more precise capital letters, like: `JD Java decompiler > library`. ok, capitlaised JD. but intentionally left Java lowercase. > * $RPM_BUILD_ROOT can be replaced with %{buildroot}. Thanx! WAs not aware actually. > * There are trailing whitespaces after License and %description, maybe more. Should begone, no more found > * Debug prints (pwd, ls) in %install sgould not be in a standard .spec. Well, why not...but removed if you need so. > * Please unindent the code under the %build section. done. > * Various random spaces that make no sense inside the %build section. done! > * Backticks for subprocesses are discouraged in favor of $(). Done! > > 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 fixed. > - 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 No javadocs intended. WOPuld be of poor quality anyway. > - 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 Fixed. Thanx forget to remove rm, after printing them.... > [!]: Sources contain only permissible code or content. I dont think the testing data or gradle jar are a reason for custom genertae sources. I had removed all ajrs, zips and classes in prep, that hsoudl be enough. ... > [?]: Package functions as described. Library can be used. => ok > [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. nope - test data gone, gradl enot present, no intention to work on them anymore. Not worthy. > [?]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed > files. No "install" included. > [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.) gradle, nothign to do about it. > [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) Weird. But shodl be aligned now. > [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) .... Walked through. Fixed what could be fixed. Thanx again for nice review! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component 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%23c4 -- _______________________________________________ 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
