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=508836 Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Blocks|177841(FE-NEEDSPONSOR) | Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #33 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-12 20:21:18 EDT --- Well, not only am I lazy, but: I have over 40 other reviews in progress. I didn't know which of your scratch builds you wanted me to actually review. Now I know. rpmlint says: colossus.src: W: strange-permission colossus-gen-tarball.sh 0755 I've never understood why rpmlint cares about this. colossus.src:172: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} rpmlint doesn't understand BuildArch being conditional. So both of those are OK. You should use %{version} in your BuildRoot: somewhere. I'm not sure why you've used %{revdate}. It shouldn't really matter, but you've obviously started with one of the recommended values so I don't quite understand why you'd change it. This is the only thing I see that needs fixing. It's so trivial that I'll go ahead and approve this now and you can fix it when you check in. The only other thing I can say is that most packages you'll see have the scriptlets down before the %files list. Not sure why, but it seems strange to see them near the front. * source files match upstream (manually compared). * 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. X build root. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: colossus-0-0.1.20090710svn4432.fc12.x86_64.rpm colossus.jar.so()(64bit) colossus = 0-0.1.20090710svn4432.fc12 colossus(x86-64) = 0-0.1.20090710svn4432.fc12 = /bin/sh coreutils java >= 1.6 java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.31 jdom jpackage-utils libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) colossus-javadoc-0-0.1.20090710svn4432.fc12.x86_64.rpm colossus-javadoc = 0-0.1.20090710svn4432.fc12 colossus-javadoc(x86-64) = 0-0.1.20090710svn4432.fc12 = colossus = 0-0.1.20090710svn4432.fc12 jpackage-utils * 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 and icon-cache). * code, not content. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. Java-specific bits: * no pre-built jars * single jar, named after the package * jarfiles are under _javadir. * javadocs are under _javadocdir. * ant called properly. * wrapper script provided. * 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