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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2006-06-26 15:42 EST ------- There's no reason to BuildReqires: coreutils; it's in the default buildroot. It would be pretty foolish to have a spec without cp and rm. rpmlint says: W: javasvn invalid-license TMate License W: javasvn-debuginfo invalid-license TMate License W: javasvn-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: javasvn-javadoc invalid-license TMate License All of which are OK. So no blockers. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses 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: fcb8db8a61cde8b5191ff6b1b87c5977 org.tmatesoft.svn_1.0.6.src.zip * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper (redundant BR: coreutils) * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O rpmlint has ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: javasvn-1.0.6-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm javasvn-1.0.6.jar.so()(64bit) javasvn = 1.0.6-1.fc6 = /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db ganymed-ssh2 >= 209 java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.33 libgcj.so.7()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) javasvn-javadoc-1.0.6-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm javasvn-javadoc = 1.0.6-1.fc6 = (nothing) * shared libraries are present, internal to gcj; rebuild-gcj-db is called properly) * package is not relocatable. * 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; not test suite upstream. * scriptlets present are OK (rebuild-gcj-db) * code, not content. * javadoc documentation split off to -javadoc subpackage. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED -- 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