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=475603 --- Comment #3 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-04 09:08:01 EDT --- Okay, full review below. Lines beginning with X need attention; those beginning with * are okay. Just a few minor things :) * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs X make sure lines are <= 80 characters - please add a line continuation to fix this on line 69 * package successfully compiles and builds * BuildRequires are proper * macros fine * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. X license is open source-compatible. - awaiting spot's comments * specfile name matches %{name} * md5sum matches upstream - the tarball I generated does not match but diff -uNr shows no differences so I assume svn timestamp differences * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * summary and description good * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used correctly X license text included in package and marked with %doc - this isn't the case. Perhaps since you're doing an SVN snapshot you can include a coyp of it? * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on this package's srpm gives no output - see comment #1 * 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 * Requires(pre,post) used correctly * 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 X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs => no output - see comment #1 * I verified that it installs cleanly. Nothing erroneous is in the MANIFEST.MF. I clicked through some of the javadocs and they look fine. Thanks for the submission and sorry it took so long to review! -- 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