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 --- Comment #3 from huwang <huwang@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-14 03:37:34 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > 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. Fixed. > > 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? Yes,it is only a pom file. No document available. > 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? > As plexus-build-api needs this version and plexus-cipher can also build with this version. > ? Why are we skipping the mvn-jpp part of the maven guidelines? > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#maven It's only a pom file, I think nothing to do for the pom in %build section. > > 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. I created another package's request. :) -- 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