[Bug 590625] Review Request: maven-doxia-tools - Maven Doxia Integration Tools

[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=590625

Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-10 11:51:41 EDT ---
Review:

OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. OUTPUT:

maven-doxia-tools.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugins ->
plug ins, plug-ins, plugging
Not a problem.

maven-doxia-tools.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 1.2.1-2
['1.2-2.fc12', '1.2-2']
Please Fix.
maven-doxia-tools.noarch: W: no-documentation
Not a problem, nothing suitable for doc.

maven-doxia-tools.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc
/etc/maven/fragments/maven-doxia-tools
Not a problem. 

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, 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. 
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 consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. Javadocs
subpackage.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. 
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 

Please do not BuildRequires: java-devel = 1:1.6.0 it should be BuildRequires:
java-devel >= 1:1.6.0

Other than that package is good.

This package is APPROVED.

-- 
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]