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=627682 --- Comment #7 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-08-27 06:03:44 EDT --- Review: FIXIT: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the review. Output: jarbundler.spec:39: W: non-standard-group Development Documentation Just make it Documentation jarbundler.spec:98: W: macro-in-%changelog %doc Macros have to be escaped in order to not be expanded. It should be %%doc in the changelog. /jarbundler.spec:71: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 71, tab: line 1) Not mandatory but it's good to follow one convention in the spec. jarbundler.src: W: name-repeated-in-summary C JarBundler If you want you can change that somehow. jarbundler-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Javanese jarbundler-javadoc.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/ant.d/jarbundler False positives. jarbundler.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.1.0-3 ['2.1.0-4.fc13', '2.1.0-4'] Your last changelog is 2.1.0-3 while your package nvr is 2.1.0-4. 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: 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. 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 BuildRequire 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. FIXIT: Each package must consistently use macros. You are using both %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT. Please use one of them consistently. OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc 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. Other things to fix: * %{_sysconfdir}/ant.d/jarbundler should be in %files not in %files javadoc * it would be good to format a bit, e.g. put empty lines between changelog entries and etc. Once this minor issues are fixed the package is good. -- 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