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=581164 --- Comment #5 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-23 04:33:25 EDT --- Review: OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Rpmlint output: maven-timestamp-plugin.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) timestamps -> time stamps, time-stamps, times tamps maven-timestamp-plugin.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-timestamp-plugin-1.0.tar.xz maven-timestamp-plugin-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Javanese These are 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. Instructions for the tarball creation included in the spec file. 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, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. 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. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. 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. There is a javadoc package with the programing documentation. OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. NOT OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. Do not own %{_datadir}/maven2/poms %config(noreplace) %{_mavendepmapfragdir} instead own the files in them i.e. %{_datadir}/maven2/poms/* %{_mavendepmapfragdir}/* I've also remove the config(noreplace) part because it's plain wrong for depmaps despite the rpmlint warning. OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. There is just a small problem that the package owns directories owned by other packages. Once this is fixed it's good to go. -- 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