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: ganymed https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191014 ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-13 00:26 EST ------- Generally we fix the line endings of HTML files as well. You can just add it to your sed call. There is one issue I'd like to discuss, which is the package name. Upstream calls this "ganymed-ssh2", and their web site implies that they are actually developing a software project entitled "ganymed". I have no idea whether this will be released to the public or whether we'd eventually package it, but I am concerned that perhaps it would be a good idea to just name this package "ganymed-ssh2" and avoid the potentential for confusion and future conflicts. A full review turned up a couple more minor issues: This package places files in %libdir/gcj/ganymed but doesn't own it. You use the %{__sed} macro, but don't use %{__rm}, %{__ln_s}, or %{__install}. Consistency is important, so you should either switch to plain "sed" or macrotize the rest of the spec. * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. X specfile is properly named and is cleanly written but does not use macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: b0ee2f0feeb5f4ae02c2d5269fe6e1e0 ganymed-ssh2-build209.zip * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). X rpmlint complains (eol encoding for faq/FAQ.html) * final provides and requires are sane: ganymed-209-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm ganymed-209.jar.so()(64bit) ganymed = 209-3.fc6 = /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.33 libgcj.so.7()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * no shared libraries are present. * package is not relocatable. X owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * scriptlets present and are OK. * code, not content. * documentation is relatively small (30% of the package), so no -docs subpackage is necessary. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review