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: Jakarta Commons CLI https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=178142 chabotc@xxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From chabotc@xxxxxxxxx 2006-01-18 06:22 EST ------- I see no one else picked this up in the meantime; Changing bug to FE-REVIEW Looking at the spec file its still confusing to find the %define's, but i know its to keep it close to the JPackage one, so thats ok :-) Groups and everything look good from the get-go too Summary: Its usually not needed to include the %{name} in it, rpm tools (or even rpm -q) would display this name already before the summary, i think better would be just: "Command Line Interface for Java" It builds and mock builds cleanly (fc-devel-i386) rpmlint output is quiet. It does have some files listed twice, rpmbuild says: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/gcj/jakarta-commons-cli warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/gcj/jakarta-commons-cli/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0.jar.db warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/gcj/jakarta-commons-cli/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0.jar.so It would be safe to make your files section: %files %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc LICENSE.txt README.txt %{_javadir}/* %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} That way it automaticly owns the directory, and picks up all the files inside of it. File permissions look good to me, so no need for %attr magic Formal review list: MUST review items: - Builds cleanly on FC5 devel. - rpmlint has no output / complaints - Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum) - Package name meets guidelines - spec file name is in %{name}.spec format - Licence (Apache) is fedora extra's compatible & is included in spec - Spec file is in (american) english - Does not list buildrequires that are excepted in the package guidelines - All build dependencies are listed - No need for ldconfig - All files have proper permissions - Package is not relocatable - ** Error: duplicate files in %files section - 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 - ** Directory-ownerships is ok, but needs rework to fix duplicate files - Not a gui app so no desktop file handling needed Should items: - Includes upstream licence file (COPYING) - No insane scriplets, or scriplets at all - No unnescesarry requires - Mock builds cleanly If you could fix the 2 above mentioned issues (summary & %files section) i think we'll be done with this in no time, nice to see your getting the hang of this packaging thing :-) -- 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
