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=508549 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-25 17:01:34 EDT --- Rpmlint output: 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. MUST items: OK: rpmlint output (see above) OK: named according to package naming guidelines OK: spec file name matches package name XX: package meets packaging guidelines: You need to add a comment on the patch. See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment OK: Fedora approved license. I wouldn't worry about that. I found public domain declarations in multiple files. OK: License field matches actual license OK: License file is included in %doc OK: Spec file in American English OK: Spec file is legible OK: Sources match upstream (compare equal with md5sum) OK: package builds into binary RPM on at least one arch (F-11 x86_64) NA: Appropriate use of ExcludeArch OK: All build dependencies in BuildRequires NA: Proper handling of locales NA: ldconfig called in %post/%postun OK: No relocatable packages OK: Package owns all directories it creates OK: No duplicate listings in %files OK: Appropriate permissions in %files OK: Package has a %clean section with appropriate contents OK: Consistent use of macros OK: Code or permissible content NA: Large documentation in a -doc subpackage OK: No runtime dependencies in %doc NA: Header files in -devel NA: Static libraries in -static NA: Requires: pkgconfig NA: .so files in -devel NA: -devel requires base package NA: No libtool archives NA: GUI applications need a desktop file OK: Don't own files/dirs already owned by other packages OK: Clean at the beginning of %install OK: All filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items: NA: Ask upstream to include a license file NA: Provide translated description and summary fields OK: Package builds in mock (checked x86_64 F-11 only) ??: Package builds on all supported arches (did not check) OK: Package functions as described (minimal testing only) OK: Sane scriptlets OK: Subpackages require base package NA: Placement of pkgconfig files NA: File dependencies Finally, I have a few comments on the spec file. First, would you consider adding ChangeLog and BUGS to %doc? I know their contents may be trivial, and the author isn't working on the code right now, but there just may be a new version some day .... Second, the -javadoc subpackage does not need to "Requires: jpackage-utils", since it requires the base package, which requires jpackage-utils. Third, I don't understand the use of %dir in the "%files javadoc" section. I think this is more readable: %files javadoc %defattr(-,root,root,-) %{_javadocdir}/%{name} %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} -- 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