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=464781 --- Comment #30 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-02-15 19:19:09 EDT --- Created an attachment (id=331996) --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/attachment.cgi?id=331996) Suggested specfile fixes Full review: rpmlint is clean $ rpmlint . 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. * MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines. %define _jdkdir %{_jvmdir}/java-1.6.0-openjdk-1.6.0.0 I suggest using simply %{_jvmdir}/java-1.6.0 instead, which will allow you to drop the JDK_DIR=`echo %{_jdkdir} | sed 's!/$!!'`.`uname -m` hack later (see attached patch). Is java-1.6 (not older and not newer) strictly required? Patch0: flexdock-jni-patch.patch + File file = new File("%{_libdir}/%{name}/");^ That '/' at the end is not necessary. Also the patch file name has a redundant 'patch' in it, same for others. BuildRequires: jpackage-utils is listed twice. #Override the build file's default hard-coded paths if [ x"$JAVACMD" != x"" ] ; then echo "using RPM jnidir" >> tmpLog echo sdk.home=%{_jnidir}-`$JAVACMD -version` > workingcopy.properties else if [ x"$JAVA_HOME" != x"" ] ; then echo "Using JAVA_HOME env. var. :" $JAVA_HOME >> tmpLog echo "sdk.home=$JAVA_HOME" > workingcopy.properties else JDK_DIR=%{_jdkdir} echo "Relying on spec file buildpath: $JDK_DIR " >> tmpLog echo "sdk.home=$JDK_DIR" > workingcopy.properties fi fi Why is the above necessary instead of: echo "sdk.home=%{_jvmdir}/java-1.6.0" > workingcopy.properties You could lose the %define _jdkdir at the beginning of the specfile then, too. Also see the attached patch for more cosmetic fixes. * MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. Most files have no licencing information while others are licenced under MIT licence. Given the presence of LICENSE.txt, this is OK, but please ask upstream to include licencing information at the top of each source file * MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. #Licence is MIT on their website, Apache in their LICENSE.txt License: MIT and ASL 2.0 Wrong. LICENSE.txt is actually word-for-word MIT: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense * MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. 88fd43d7d8db92e9480200c316e55056 flexdock-0.5.1-src.zip * SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. * SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported architectures. Doesn't build on F-9/x86_64 and F-9/i386 (java bug?). -- 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