Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=475058 Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Adel Gadllah <adel.gadllah@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-29 09:54:24 EDT --- REVIEW: [+] = OK [-] = NOT OK [1] = SEE COMMENTS [?] = WTF? =========================== [+] source files match upstream: sha1: 90bad27d62e4ab5813a200feec2c5ae34e615813 [+] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [1] 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. GPLv2 with exceptions or CDDL [+] license text included in package. [+] latest version is being packaged. 6.5-200811100001-ml [+] BuildRequires are proper. [+] %clean is present. [+] package builds in koji. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1024679 [+] package installs properly. [2] rpmlint is silent. [3] final provides and requires are sane. [+] owns the directories it creates. [+] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [+] no duplicates in %files. [+] file permissions are appropriate. [3] scriptlets are sane [+] code, not content. [+] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [+] no headers. [+] no pkgconfig files. [+] no libtool .la droppings. ================== COMMENTS: [1] Do we really need the "Distrubution" tag? AFAIK nothing in Fedora makes use of it. Package groups are handled via comps. Changelog: Please remove the "6.1" references because they are not really related to this package. (changelog entries from the former "platform8" package) [2] Its not see comments above. The only thing that can/should be fixed are the "W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm" warnings, see [4] [3] rpm -qp netbeans-platform-6.5-2.fc11.noarch.rpm --provides libnb-platform9 = 6.5 netbeans-platform = 6.5-2.fc11 rpm -qp netbeans-platform-harness-6.5-2.fc11.noarch.rpm --provides libnb-platform9-devel = 6.5 netbeans-platform-harness = 6.5-2.fc11 Any reason why they are called "libnb-platform9" and "libnb-platform9-devel" ? Those should be renamed to libnb-plaform/-devel (other packages can use the version to require it). [4] Whats the purpose of the noautoupdate scriptlets? Wouldn't it be better to just package those files (generate them in %install section and add entries in %files). This way rpm will handle the deletion/creation of this files and there would be no need for the scriptlets. Besides those the package/spec looks fine. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review