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=462560 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #7 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-21 11:10:51 EDT --- Output from rpmlint: xmlpull-api.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Java xmlpull-api-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation xmlpull-api.spec:39: W: non-standard-group Development/Java xmlpull-api.spec:66: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation xmlpull-api.spec:140: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 5 warnings. All of which are fine. We don't care about the group, and gcj forces you to use %{_libdir}. MUST items: OK: rpmlint output OK: package named according to Package Naming Guidelines OK: spec file name matches package name OK: package meets packaging guidelines OK: package license meets licensing guidelines OK: license field matches actual license OK: license file included in %doc [1] OK: spec file in American English OK: spec file is legible OK: sources match upstream sources [2] OK: package builds successfully on at least one primary arch (x86_64) NA: appropriate use of ExcludeArch OK: all build dependencies in BuildRequires NA: proper locale handling NA: proper use of ldconfig NA: relocatable packages need rationale OK: package owns all created directories OK: no duplicate listings in %files OK: permissions on files OK: %clean section OK: consistent use of macros OK: code or permissible content NA: large documentation in -doc subpackage OK: nothing in %doc needed at runtime NA: header files in -devel NA: static libraries in -static NA: Requires: pkgconfig NA: .so files in -devel NA: -devel requires main package OK: no libtool archives NA: proper installation of desktop file OK: does not own files/dirs owned by other packages OK: clean at start of %install OK: all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items: NA: ask upstream to include license file NA: provide translated summary and description OK: package builds in mock (only tried Fedora 11 x86_64) ??: package builds into binary RPMs on all supported arches (did not check) OK: package functions as described (only able to test lightly) OK: sane scriptlets OK: subpackages require main package NA: placement of pkgconfig files NA: file dependencies Footnotes: [1] %doc also includes LICENSE_TESTS.txt, which seems odd, since the tests are neither run nor included in the binary package. [2] With regard to comments #1 and #3, note that there have been more CVS checkins (in 2006!) since the 1.1.4b tag, and the log entries for those checkins refer to version 1.2-RC1. There have been no messages to the user or dev mailing lists since 2007. Is upstream dead? Here are a few more changes I would like you to consider. I won't block the review on any of these, but I think they are worth considering. 1. Make the -javadoc subpackage be noarch. 2. Add the doc subdirectory to %doc. 3. Make an -addons subpackage to hold (parts of) the addons/java subdirectory. This may be more trouble than it is worth. I'll leave that judgment call to you. 4. Make a -samples subpackage to hold (parts of) the src/java/samples subdirectory. Ditto #3. -- 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