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=225644 --- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski <orion@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-10-15 12:53:30 EDT --- * rpmlint classpathx-mail.i686: W: obsolete-not-provided classpathx-mail-monolithic Probably should have: Provides: classpathx-mail-monolithic = %{version}-%{release} or just drop the obsoletes if it is no longer relevant. classpathx-mail.i686: W: dangerous-command-in-%trigger rm rm -f %{_javadir}/javamail.jar Checks out okay. * naming - OK * NamingGuidelines - OK * licensing - GPLv2+ with exceptions * osi approved? - OK * included? - OK * correct mentioned in specfile? - OK specfile * American English - OK * legible - OK * ExcludeArch, blocking - NA * BuildRequires - OK * Locales - NA * shared libraries: ldconfig - NA * %clean section with rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} - OK * macros - OK * sources - inetlib mismatch - fixed above * relocatable? Prefix: /usr? - NA * files and directories - OK * owns all created directories - OK * all files listed in %files - OK * permissions? - OK * deffattr? - New standard is: %defattr(-,root,root,-) * no .la files - OK * .desktop for GUI applications - NA * no conflicts with other packets - OK * -devel - NA * doc Perhaps add README.* to %doc? * large doc in -doc package - NA * must not affect runtime - OK * mock build - OK * sane scriptlets - OK * subpackages with fully versioned dependency javadoc should have: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} Requires: jpackage-utils -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review