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=484676 Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-09 10:31:51 EDT --- A few minor things: - please set the fedora-review flag to ? - change the Requires: on java to be >= (or maybe '='?) 1.5.0 - I prefer to add a short name after dropins: %files %{eclipse_dropin} => %{eclipse_dropin}/dtp - please add a comment above the sed line getting rid of the sun.misc.Compare - should we add some comment(s) stating why we're only building the features we are? And the rest of the review (lines beginning with X need attention; those beginning with * are okay): X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs - other than the java one, things look good X make sure lines are <= 80 characters - could you add some line continuations to fix this? X package successfully compiles and builds - is this expected? [javac] 4. ERROR in /home/overholt/rpmbuild/BUILD/dtp-1.6.1/build/plugins/org.eclipse.datatools.connectivity.oda.design/src/org/eclipse/datatools/connectivity/oda/design/impl/InputElementUIHintsImpl.java [javac] (at line 112) [javac] assert (eContainer() instanceof InputElementAttributes); [javac] ^^^^^^ [javac] The method assert(boolean) is undefined for the type InputElementUIHintsImpl * BuildRequires are proper * macros fine * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * md5sum matches upstream - not applicable - other than timestamps, my generated tarball matches the one in the SRPM * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * summary and description good - the description is a bit vague but it is what upstream provides, so ... * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used correctly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output * changelog format okay * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * not native, so no rpath, static linking, etc. * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel necessary * install section begins with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} * no translations so no locale handling * no Requires(pre,post) * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions fine * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs => no output * package includes license text in the package and marks it with %doc -- 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