Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: itext - a PDF creation library in java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176981 ------- Additional Comments From chabotc@xxxxxxxxx 2006-01-16 20:07 EST ------- Is it still worth having the %define section free in the spec file? Or is it there to keep it as close to the JPackage one as possible? Kind of looks out of place there :-) Licence is often written as 'MPL' and not fully "Mozilla Public Licence" (just as GPL/BSD/LGPL etc are written shorthand), mozilla its self uses MPL too so i think thats the example to follow, also by examples of other packages i think the proper format would be: MPL/LGPL Still one inconsitent version in the changelog according to rpmlint: W: itext incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.3-1jpp_4 1.3-1jpp_4 rpmlint Group warnings: W: itext-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: itext-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation Its either Development/Libraries, or "Documentation", Development/Documentation unfortunatly doesn't exist. Please use "Documenation" for the 2 sub packages with the docs. other rpmlint warning: W: itext-manual hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/itext-1.3/ant/.ant.properties But this is ignorable The package also owns / inclues: /usr/share/java/itext But this is an empty directory .. is there any reason for its being there? If not please remove review list so far: MUST review items: - Builds cleanly on FC5 devel. - Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum) - Package name meets guidelines - spec file name is in %{name}.spec format - Licence (MPL/LGPL) is fedora extra's compatible & is included - Spec file is in (american) english - Does not list buildrequires that are excepted in the package guidelines - All build dependencies are listed - No ldconfig needed - All files have proper permissions - Package is not relocatable - No duplicate files in %files section (but empty dir present/owned) - No missing files in %files section - Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines - No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation - No -devel package needed (though using javadoc/manual packages there not devel packages with .a/.so/.h files) - No directory-ownerships needed - No gui app, so no need for a desktop file Should items: - Includes upstream licence(s) file (MPL-1.1.txt and lgpl.txt) - No insane scriplets - No unnescesarry requires I'm running a mock build to verify in the meantime, but that will take a few more minutes to complete. Meantime please address the above mentioned issues and we'll be very close to FE-ACCEPT! -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. -- fedora-extras-list mailing list fedora-extras-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-extras-list
