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=638590 --- Comment #12 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> 2010-11-22 07:58:55 EST --- Package Review ============== Key: - = N/A x = Check ! = Problem ? = Not evaluated === REQUIRED ITEMS === [!] Rpmlint output: freemind.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US refactor -> redactor, reactor, refractor freemind.noarch: E: non-standard-executable-perm /usr/share/freemind/freemind.sh 0744L freemind.noarch: W: no-manual-page-for-binary freemind freemind.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/freemind/freemind.jar freemind.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/freemind/lib/freemind.jar freemind.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US refactor -> redactor, reactor, refractor freemind.src: W: strange-permission freemind.sh 0755L freemind-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Javanese 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 7 warnings. /usr/share/freemind directory contains several unnecessary files (*bat, *sh, even *exe) and more importantly jar files instead of symlinks to external jars in /usr/share/java. These will have to be replaced. Plus there is doc/javadoc subdirectory (that should not exist in main package obviously). class-path-in-manifest also needs to be fixed by removing Class-Path from MANIFEST.MF [x] Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1]. [x] Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format %{name}.spec. [x] Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2]. [x] Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms. [!] Buildroot definition is not present Buildroot is no longer needed on Fedoras [x] Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging Guidelines[3,4]. [x] License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. License type: GPLv2 and MIT [!] 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 is included in %doc. You include 'license' file, but forgot to include LICENSE.MIT from accessories [x] All independent sub-packages have license of their own [x] Spec file is legible and written in American English. [x] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. MD5SUM this package : MD5SUM upstream package: [x] All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5]. [x] Package must own all directories that it creates. [x] Package requires other packages for directories it uses. [x] Package does not contain duplicates in %files. [!] Permissions on files are set properly. freemind.sh should be chmodded to 644 (you are stting it to +x during install anyway) [!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) You don't need %clean section at all on recent Fedoras [x] Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mixing) [x] Package contains code, or permissable content. [x] Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present. [x] Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI application. [x] Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages. [x] Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc subpackage just need to be removed from main package.. [!] Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks) javadocs should not be versioned anymore [x] Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils [x] Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils You should remove Requires on main package though. [-] Package uses %global not %define [-] If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...) [x] If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be removed prior to building [x] All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. [x] Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details) [-] If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when building with ant [-] pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly) === Other suggestions === [x] If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac) [x] Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary [x] Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible) [x] Latest version is packaged. [x] Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. Tested on: fedora-rawhide-x86_64 [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines [3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines [4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main [5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2 [6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames -- 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