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=516343 --- Comment #24 from Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-11-10 10:15:19 EDT --- OK - rpmlint output 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. OK - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name} OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines OK - If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc (no license file) OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is Public Domain) NA - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1798401 OK - The spec file MUST be written in American English. OK - The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK - The sources used to build the package MUST match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. b2f8d9ade3cc8008ed41ad62c1e80bc2 metadata-extractor-2.3.1-src.jar NA - The spec file MUST handle locales properly (no translations) NA - package not relocatable OK - A package MUST own all directories that it creates OK - A Fedora package MUST NOT list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings OK - Permissions on files MUST be set properly OK - Each package MUST have a %clean section OK - Each package MUST consistently use macros OK - The package MUST contain code, or permissable content OK - Large documentation files MUST go in a -doc subpackage (javadocs in -javadoc subpackage) OK - IF a package includes something as %doc, it MUST not affect the runtime of the application NA - Header files MUST be in a -devel package (java package) NA - Static libraries MUST be in a -static package (no static package) NA - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files MUST 'Requires: pkgconfig' OK - Packages MUST NOT contain any .la libtool archives NA - Packages containing GUI applications MUST include a .desktop file OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK - At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} OK - All filenames in rpm packages MUST be valid UTF-8 OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release OK - Jar file naming (versioned jar file and unversioned symlink) OK - BuildRequires and Requires (Java and Ant Rs and BRs used consistently with guidelines) OK - Pre-built JAR files / Other bundled software (not present) NEEDSWORK - Java Directory structure: all jars in %{_javadir} and all javadocs in %{_javadocdir} OK - Javadoc scriptlets not present NOTES: For -javadoc subpackage, you dont want a versioned dir and an unversioned link pointing to that. (See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#ant_2 ). With that fixed, i will approve the package. -- 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