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=529084 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> 2009-10-26 15:53:07 EDT --- In the build log, I see this: deploy: [jar] Building jar: /builddir/build/BUILD/javatar-2.5/tar-2.5/jars/tar.jar [jar] Manifest warning: "Name" attributes should not occur in the main section and must be the first element in all other sections: "Name: "Java Tar"" Is this caused by the sed invocation on the manifest file? If so, is that invocation correct? Also, the source archive contains .class files in classes/com/ice/tar. Would you mind deleting those in %prep, just to be sure they don't affect compilation? The javadoc documentation is neither rebuilt nor packaged. Would you consider invoking "ant javadoc", and putting the contents of doc/api into a -javadoc subpackage? Here is the output of rpmlint: javatar.src:97: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} javatar-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources ../SPECS/javatar.spec:97: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. The warnings are just part of life with GCJ and can be ignored. The error is a problem. Why are there no sources in the debuginfo package? MUST items: XX: rpmlint output (see above) OK: naming guidelines OK: spec file name matches base package name OK: packaging guidelines OK: licensing guidelines OK: license field matches actual license OK: license file included in %doc OK: spec file in American English OK: spec file is legible OK: sources match upstream (md5sum of both is 7dae3b92b70c30cfb6fd9699a79f821c) OK: successfully compiles on at least one arch (x86_64) NA: proper use of ExcludeArch OK: all build dependencies in BuildRequires NA: proper locale handling NA: ldconfig invocation OK: no copies of system libraries NA: relocatable package OK: package owns all directories it creates OK: no duplicate listings in %files OK: proper permissions on files OK: %clean section OK: consistent use of macros OK: code or permissible content NA: large documentation in -doc 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 main package NA: no libtool archives NA: desktop file for GUI applications 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: query upstream for a file containing the license NA: description and summary contain available translations OK: package builds in mock (only tested Fedora 11 x86_64) ??: package builds on all supported arches (not able to test) OK: package functions as described (light testing only) OK: sane scriptlets NA: subpackages require main 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