Package Review
==============

Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed


Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
  listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: unzip
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2
- This seems like a Java package, please install fedora-review-plugin-java to
  get additional checks


===== 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.
[!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache
     (v2.0) BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (3 clause)",
     "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 94 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/gil/1087823-lucene3/licensecheck.txt
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: 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]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
     (~1MB) or number of files.
     Note: Documentation size is 317440 bytes in 4 files.
[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 %doc.
[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]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
     work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local

Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build

===== SHOULD items =====

Generic:
[x]: 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).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
     lucene3-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise justified.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
     Note: Package contains tarball without URL, check comments
[x]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[x]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
     architectures.
[x]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Packager, Vendor, PreReq, Copyright tags should not be in spec file
[x]: Sources can be downloaded from URI in Source: tag
[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]: Dist tag is present (not strictly required in GL).
[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 unless justified.

===== EXTRA items =====

Generic:
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all installed packages.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Spec file according to URL is the same as in SRPM.


Rpmlint
-------
Checking: lucene3-3.6.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          lucene3-javadoc-3.6.2-1.fc21.noarch.rpm
          lucene3-3.6.2-1.fc21.src.rpm
lucene3.src: W: invalid-url Source4: dev-tools.tar.xz
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.




Rpmlint (installed packages)
----------------------------
# rpmlint lucene3-javadoc lucene3
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
# echo 'rpmlint-done:'



Requires
--------
lucene3-javadoc (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils

lucene3 (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):
    jpackage-utils



Provides
--------
lucene3-javadoc:
    lucene3-javadoc

lucene3:
    lucene3
    mvn(org.apache.lucene:lucene-core:3)
    mvn(org.apache.lucene:lucene-core:3.6.2)
    mvn(org.apache.lucene:lucene-parent)
    mvn(org.apache.lucene:lucene-parent:pom:3)
    mvn(org.apache.lucene:lucene-parent:pom:3.6.2)
    mvn(org.apache.lucene:lucene-solr-grandparent)
    mvn(org.apache.lucene:lucene-solr-grandparent:pom:3)
    mvn(org.apache.lucene:lucene-solr-grandparent:pom:3.6.2)
    osgi(org.apache.lucene.core)



Source checksums
----------------
https://archive.apache.org/dist/lucene/java/3.6.2/lucene-3.6.2-src.tgz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 984bf1e82e32ecdc6c4ff7f582b5bd0a4c2bf68acd1d48bf6df74ad86c97ca8c
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 984bf1e82e32ecdc6c4ff7f582b5bd0a4c2bf68acd1d48bf6df74ad86c97ca8c


Generated by fedora-review 0.5.1 (bb9bf27) last change: 2013-12-13
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review -b 1087823 -m fedora-rawhide-i386
Buildroot used: fedora-rawhide-i386
Active plugins: Generic, Shell-api, Java
Disabled plugins: C/C++, Python, fonts, SugarActivity, Ocaml, Perl, Haskell, R, PHP, Ruby
Disabled flags: EXARCH, EPEL5, BATCH, DISTTAG

Issues:
=======
- All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are
  listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
  Note: These BR are not needed: unzip
  See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

Please ,remove this BR

[?]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Apache (v2.0)", "Unknown or generated", "MIT/X11 (BSD like)", "Apache
     (v2.0) BSD (3 clause)", "Apache (v2.0) BSD (2 clause)", "BSD (3 clause)",
     "BSD (2 clause)", "*No copyright* Apache (v2.0)". 94 files have unknown
     license. Detailed output of licensecheck in
     /home/gil/1087823-lucene3/licensecheck.txt

If in a second time this package should provides other libraries,
should be update license field

[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.

Please, install license also in javadoc sub package

[!]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.

 Please, use (e.g.)
install -pm 0644 dev-tools/maven/lucene/core/pom.xml.template $RPM_BUILD_ROOT/%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP.%{name}-lucene-core.pom


Please fix these problems before import time

Created attachment 886490 [details]
licensecheck

Thank you! I'll fix these.

New Package SCM Request
=======================
Package Name: lucene3
Short Description: High-performance, full-featured text search engine
Owners: goldmann

Git done (by process-git-requests).