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=594416 --- Comment #5 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-07-15 08:23:19 EDT --- OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. json-lib.noarch: W: no-documentation json-lib.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/json-lib json-lib.src: W: invalid-url Source0: json-lib-2.3.tar.gz 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. The only problem is missing documentation (e.g. License file). Please contact upstream and see if they would mind including it in CVS repos. 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 - see above: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package must be included in %doc. 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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL Guidelines for how to deal with this. OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. NEEDSWORK: 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. As you mentioned this package needs new groovy/antlr3-tool packages. It would be better to actually state minimal required versions (e.g. BR: antlr3-tool >= 3.2-7 I believe) OK: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. NEEDSWORK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. There are jar files in src/lib. They do not appear to be used (package compiled fine without them) so it should not be a problem to remove them. OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory. 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. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line. 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. (The definition of large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly if it is not present. OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, then please present that at package review time. OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. There are also things which I pointed out during ezmorph review, but as it was there...those are up to you. You will have to remove those jars before I can approve this package, so while you're at it please change the BRs of groovy/antlr3-tool and perhaps even make comment about using maven a little more descriptive. Perhaps even contact upstream if they would mind providing complete source tarballs so we won't have to use cvs next time? -- 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