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=474391 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #2 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-05 17:12:22 EDT --- Sorry nobody has looked at this for so long; I've been mostly taking a break from reviewing packages. This package looks fine; the only question I have is whether build-jar-repository should be called in %prep or in %build. The guidelines don't say one way or the other. I don't think this is worth holding things up over, although personally I like to be able to prep a package without installing its dependencies. * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 6c4d907e912fbbda8228707540f5dab2954aa0e6f2ce1bd1ed9b4f43a7b6972a libbase-1.0.0.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: libbase.jar.so()(64bit) libbase = 1.0.0-1.fc11 libbase(x86-64) = 1.0.0-1.fc11 = /bin/sh jakarta-commons-logging java java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.31 jpackage-utils libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * scriptlets are OK (gcj database rebuilding). * code, not content. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no pre-built jars * single jar, named after the package * jarfiles are under _javadir. * javadocs are under _javadocdir. * ant called properly. * no wrapper script necessary. * gcj called properly. APPROVED -- 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