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=588142 Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #11 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-05-17 10:57:23 EDT --- Review: OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. OUTPUT: maven-release-manager-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Javanese maven-release-plugin-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Javanese maven-release-manager.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging maven-release-manager.noarch: W: no-documentation maven-release.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging maven-release.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven-release maven-release-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation maven-release.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US plugin -> plug in, plug-in, plugging maven-release.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-release-2.0.tar.xz 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. Btw, What is the reason for putting BuildArch:noarch when the main package is noarch already. Plese remove it. Other than that the 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