Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896 ------- Additional Comments From ifoox@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-09-08 10:33 EST ------- New files: http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-11.src.rpm http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec (In reply to comment #6) > Hmm, this builds but will not install on current rawhide: > > Error: Missing Dependency: readline = 5.0 is needed by package libreadline-java > > Rawhide has readline 5.1; I changed readline_ver to match and it seems to be OK. Fixed. > Also, there are a few rpmlint warnings; I think it now checks for more than it > did when I first looked at this package. > > W: libreadline-java macro-in-%changelog _jnidir > W: libreadline-java macro-in-%changelog _libdir > You need to double any percent symbols that appear in the changelog, lest > they be expanded in the final RPM. Fixed. > E: libreadline-java no-cleaning-of-buildroot > You need rpm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install. Fixed. > W: libreadline-java mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs > It's complaining about a couple of tabs after Group: (use "less -U" to see > them). This isn't a blocker. Fixed. > The debuginfo package is now missing the source again. I'm at a loss as to why > this is continually a problem, but it's not really a blocker. Perhaps some day > someone will actually understand what's going on here. Hopefully. :-) > You need to include COPYING.LIB as %doc. Fixed. > Shouldn't the jar file go in /usr/share/java? If not, nothing in your > dependency chain owns /usr/lib/java. You are right, I'm not sure why it was in /usr/lib/java. Fixed. > * source files match upstream: > 501720ddded45eaedf429b7cc356107c libreadline-java-0.8.0-src.tar.gz > X package meets naming and packaging guidelines (non-numeric release bits). > * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. > X dist tag is present. Fixed. > * build root is correct. > * license field matches the actual license. > * license is open source-compatible. > X license text upstream but not included in package. > * latest version is being packaged. > * BuildRequires are proper. > * compiler flags are appropriate. > * %clean is present. > * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). > ? debuginfo package looks complete. > X rpmlint has valid complaints > X final provides and requires are sane: > libreadline-java = 0.8.0-10jpp_3fc > = > X readline = 5.0 > /sbin/ldconfig > java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.31 > /bin/sh > * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. > * a shared library is present and ldconfig is called properly. > * package is not relocatable. > ? owns the directories it creates. > * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. > * no duplicates in %files. > * file permissions are appropriate. > * scriptlets OK (ldconfig, gcj-db) > * code, not content. > * javadocs split out into separate jackage. > * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. > * no headers. > * no pkgconfig files. > * no libtool .la droppings. > * unversioned .so in -devel subpackage. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review