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: ======= - Package does not use a name that already exists. Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check https://src.fedoraproject.org/rpms/saxon See: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/packaging- guidelines/Naming/#_conflicting_package_names - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on javapackages-tools (jpackage-utils) - 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: [ ]: 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. [ ]: 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. [ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found: "Unknown or generated", "Apache License 2.0", "Mozilla Public License 2.0 [generated file]", "Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* Apache License 2.0", "BSD 3-Clause License", "zlib License", "GNU General Public License, Version 2", "MIT License", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 1.0", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License 2.0", "*No copyright* Public domain", "*No copyright* Mozilla Public License", "PHP License v3.01", "Apache License 1.1", "Apache License 2.0 and/or Mozilla Public License 2.0", "Mozilla Public License 1.0", "*No copyright* W3C License", "Common Public License 1.0", "Microsoft Public License", "W3C License". 6862 files have unknown license. Detailed output of licensecheck in /var/lib/copr- rpmbuild/results/saxon/licensecheck.txt [ ]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses. Note: No known owner of /usr/share/java/saxon/lib, /usr/share, /usr/share/java, /usr, /usr/share/java/saxon [ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates. Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/java/saxon/lib, /usr/share, /usr/share/java, /usr, /usr/share/java/saxon [ ]: 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. [ ]: Only use %_sourcedir in very specific situations. Note: %_sourcedir/$RPM_SOURCE_DIR is used. [ ]: 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 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 0 bytes in 0 files. [x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local 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: [!]: 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. [ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified. [ ]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented. Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments [ ]: 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. [ ]: Spec use %global instead of %define unless justified. Note: %define requiring justification: %define autorelease(e:s:pb:n) %{?-p:0.}%{lua: [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]: SourceX is a working URL. 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: saxon-12.5.0-1.fc40.noarch.rpm saxon-12.5.0-1.fc40.src.rpm ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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/tmpwc8x0asf')] checks: 32, packages: 2 saxon.spec:42: E: use-of-RPM_SOURCE_DIR saxon.noarch: E: spelling-error ('conformant', '%description -l en_US conformant -> conform ant, conform-ant, conformance') saxon.src: E: spelling-error ('conformant', '%description -l en_US conformant -> conform ant, conform-ant, conformance') saxon.spec: W: patch-not-applied Patch0: set_he_gradle.properties.patch saxon.noarch: W: no-documentation saxon.noarch: W: name-repeated-in-summary Saxon saxon.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary Saxon saxon.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: saxon-12.5.0.tar.gz saxon.src: W: inconsistent-file-extension saxon-12.5.0.tar.gz saxon.noarch: W: empty-%postun saxon.noarch: W: empty-%post saxon.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/saxon/saxon-he.jar 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 3 errors, 9 warnings, 11 filtered, 3 badness; has taken 2.4 s Rpmlint (installed packages) ---------------------------- (none): E: there is no installed rpm "saxon". There are no files to process nor additional arguments. Nothing to do, aborting. ============================ rpmlint session starts ============================ rpmlint: 2.5.0 configuration: /usr/lib/python3.12/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 checks: 32, packages: 1 0 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings, 0 filtered, 0 badness; has taken 0.0 s Requires -------- saxon (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered): /bin/sh java-headless Provides -------- saxon: saxon Jar and class files in source ----------------------------- ./saxon-12.5.0/src/test/testdata/hedenus/Saxon.class ./saxon-12.5.0/src/test/testdata/base64/java/TextTobase64.class ./saxon-12.5.0/gradle/wrapper/gradle-wrapper.jar Generated by fedora-review 0.10.0 (e79b66b) last change: 2023-07-24 Command line :/bin/fedora-review --no-colors --prebuilt --rpm-spec --name saxon --mock-config /var/lib/copr-rpmbuild/results/configs/child.cfg Buildroot used: fedora-40-x86_64 Active plugins: Generic, Java, Shell-api Disabled plugins: fonts, R, Perl, Ocaml, Python, Haskell, C/C++, SugarActivity, PHP Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL6, EPEL7, DISTTAG, BATCH