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=495411 --- Comment #4 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-14 10:55:20 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > * rpmlint says: > dnsjava.src:106: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) > This one is a false warning and can be ignored I also think it is wrong. Is there bug for that on rpmlint? > dnsjava.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dnsjava-2.0.6/Changelog > We need to fix this. "iconv" will help. Off course I seen this. But I do not know from *what* encoding it should be recoded. Enca also do not help me: $ enca Changelog Unrecognized encoding I think it is not very big problem in any case. > ! There are some example .java files in the root of the tarball. Their usage > are explained in the USAGE file. I think these .java files need to go to %doc > (of the main package). Alternatively, you can build them and put them in > %{_datadir}/%{name} or so. (You mention about these files in the %description > too) Ok, I put *.java into docs. > * There is a tests directory. The README file mentions about building and > running these compile tests. We should make a %check section and run these > tests, if possible. Tests added. > ? Shouldn't the group tag be "System Environment/Libraries"? I do not know. Seriously. Let it be, if you want. > ! Since you are building the javadoc from source, you can remove the existing > doc/ directory in %prep Added. > * README file says: > "dnsjava is placed under the BSD license. Several files are also under > additional licenses; see the individual files for details." > I found that the files org/xbill/DNS/Tokenizer.java, > org/xbill/DNS/ZoneTransferIn.java are licensed under MIT > This makes the license BSD and MIT I must place "BSD and MIT" into License tag? Or what I must do with it? > * This comment contains single % macro > #ant -Dj2se.javadoc=%{_javadocdir}/java clean docsclean dnssec jar docs > Do we need this comment? No, this commetn unneeded anymore. Deleted. > ! Also these comments are not needed. They can be removed: > #Epoch: 0 > #Vendor: JPackage Project > #Distribution: JPackage Off course. I comment out it, but leave for historical reasons. Any disadvantage from it? > > * This changelog entry contains single % macro > - In Source0 tag inject %%{name} and %{version} macroses. Fixed. Hmmm, very strange why rpmlint was silent on it?! I recheck it now and it is also silent about this concrete error. > (Also macroses->macros) > > * "%attr(-,root,root)" is redundant in the line > %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} > I reported this to java folks a while ago. They still didn't fix this > guideline. I thought also when copied... May you correct guidelines? Fixed in my spec. > ! In the description, please separate the paragraphs with blanks lines. It'll > look better. Ok :) Done. > * These BR's seem unnecessary: jce, java-javadoc Why? It comes from JPackage rpm and i do not touch this. > * BR: jpackage-utils is listed twice. Fixed. > * You don't want to write "specific_version" in Requires. If you need to pull > openjdk-devel instead of gcj-devel, you can use something like >=1.7 or > >=1:1.6.0 > * Also use the same number (>=1.7 or >=1:1.6.0) for Requires: java Sorry. It is my stupid copy/past. Fixed. http://hubbitus.net.ru/rpm/Fedora9/dnsjava/dnsjava-2.0.6-3.fc9.src.rpm -- 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