[Bug 587646] Review Request: not-yet-commons-ssl - Library to make SSL and Java Easier

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=587646

Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster@xxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |mefoster@xxxxxxxxx
         AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    |mefoster@xxxxxxxxx

--- Comment #1 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-03 06:06:24 EDT ---
Review:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
not-yet-commons-ssl-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs
-> Java docs, Java-docs, Javanese
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

False positive (although you may want to change that to "API Documentation" or
something)

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.
FIX: The spec file must be written in American English.

Typo in the description: "let's" should be "lets"

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.
716ac79b162dc5a964d6c7ac863def46  not-yet-commons-ssl-0.3.11.zip
716ac79b162dc5a964d6c7ac863def46  not-yet-commons-ssl-0.3.11.zip.1

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. 


Also: the javadoc package has its files in
/usr/share/javadoc/not-yet-commons-ssl/javadocs -- that extra "javadocs"
directory shouldn't be there.

Is the link to commons-ssl.jar necessary at the moment? (That is, do other
packages using this expect to find something called commons-ssl.jar?)

-- 
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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]