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=561276 --- Comment #1 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-03 06:20:13 EST --- Review: OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output: cal10n.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US calion -> cation, ca lion, ca-lion cal10n.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ascii -> ASCII cal10n.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US charset -> char set, char-set, Charles cal10n.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US calion -> cation, ca lion, ca-lion cal10n.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ascii -> ASCII cal10n.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US charset -> char set, char-set, Charles cal10n.noarch: W: no-documentation cal10n.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/cal10n maven-cal10n-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US enum -> menu, en um, en-um maven-cal10n-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation 4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings. All of these appear to be false positives OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 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. OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. 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, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK: Each package must consistently use macros. OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Just a couple of small things: - What's the need for the external_repo stuff at the start of %prep? - The macro %{_mavenpomdir} expands to %{_datadir}/maven2/poms, which makes things a bit neater Neither is a show stopper ... -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review