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=591454 Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-13 05:14:26 EDT --- I made a review. Since this is a quite simple package there is just a few minor things to go over. * rpmlint says spice-parent.src: W: invalid-url Source0: spice-parent-15.tar.gz We need to specify the sources, especially Source0, with full URL if possible. If there is absolutely no way to get a full URL for them, we indicate this as a comment in the specfile and give the directions to create the source (tar)ball. Also typically, we use %{name}-%{version} macros in Source0 (and in URL in your case). This saves us work when we update the package. spice-parent.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Sonatype -> Sonatina, Sonata, Resonate I think this is fine. spice-parent.noarch: W: no-documentation So this package source is one .pom file. That's it? No way to get a license file from upstream? spice-parent.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/spice-parent This can be ignored for this package. ! some suggestions (these are not blockers, take them as you wish): 1- In %files, I find it better for legibility to avoid using * if there is only one file. 2- Please span the description to 80 columns as much as possible for consistency with other packages. * Latest version should be packaged. There is a spice-parent-16 over there. By the way, is there no proper webpage for this where we can track the versions? ? Why are we skipping the mvn-jpp part of the maven guidelines? http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#maven This is it about the package for now. I see that you need to be sponsored. Typically in Fedora, we ask the packagers to do some more work to show that they are proficient in following the guidelines. This can be done in a couple ways: Preferably, you can do some informal reviews on other people's packages. Or you can post some other package(s) for review. It would be good to try packaging or reviewing some other type of software than single .pom files. This will help sponsors to understand your proficiency. -- 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