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=167525 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Keywords| |Reopened Status|CLOSED |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Blocks|201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) | Resolution|NOTABUG | AssignedTo|gemi@xxxxxxxxxx |loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #8 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-27 11:36:00 EDT --- I would have found this sooner if it wasn't marked CLOSED NOTABUG and blocked FE-DEADREVIEW. :-) Is there a reason for not building with gcj? If so, please include an explanatory comment at the top of the spec file. If not, please add the aot compilation bits. There is ongoing work to migrate to maven 2.0.8. Does this package need to wait for that release of maven in order to build the manual? Although it appears someone will have to package these first anyway: http://clirr.sourceforge.net/ http://mojo.codehaus.org/clirr-maven-plugin/ In the absence of a manual, how about putting a URL to the online manual in the description or in a README.fedora? Does this package need to drop a file into /etc/ant.d? MUST items: OK: rpmlint out 2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK: package name OK: spec filename matches package name XX: packaging guidelines are met https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires requires that jpackage-utils also be a Requires, that java-devel be a BuildRequires, and that java be a Requires. OK: licensing guidelines OK: license field matches actual license OK: license file in %doc OK: spec file in American English OK: spec file is legible (but put a blank line between the first 2 %changelog entries, please) OK: source matches upstream (checked with md5sum) OK: package builds successfully on at least one primary arch NA: appropriate use of ExcludeArch OK: all build dependencies in BuildRequires NA: proper handling of locales NA: ldconfig invocation OK: no relocatable packages XX: package owns all directories it creates This package does not own /usr/share/doc/cpptasks, which is the wrong name anyway (no version). Please replace the %doc lines for the base package with this: %doc LICENSE NOTICE OK: no duplicate listings in %files OK: correct permissions on files OK: %clean section OK: consistent use of macros OK: code or permissible content OK: large documentation in -doc (more information needed on the manual, though; see above) 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 OK: no libtool archives NA: GUI applications need a desktop file OK: do not own files/dirs owned by other packages OK: clean at top of %install OK: all filenames are valid UTF-8 SHOULD items: NA: ask upstream to include a license file NA: include translated description and summary OK: package builds in mock (tried x86_64 Fedora 11 only) ??: package builds on all supported arches (did not check) ??: package functions as described (I don't know how to check) OK: sane scriptlets XX: subpackages require the base package The -javadoc subpackage does not require the base package. NA: placement of pkgconfig files NA: file dependencies -- 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