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=658420 --- Comment #3 from Jussi Lehtola <jussi.lehtola@xxxxxx> 2011-01-25 15:01:58 EST --- - I recommend that you make the java requirements explicit with BuildRequires: java-devel >= 1:1.6.0 and Requires: java >= 1:1.6.0 so that a proper Java compiler is used instead of gcj. *** # add postfix -zorba to library name, and extend soname by %%{version} Patch0: zorba-json.patch You *do* realize, that you won't be able to do version updates in any branch, since the soname will break every time...? *** It's a bit funny that ASCII and XML files are placed in %{_libdir}/zorba/. There are a few ELF files, too, though.. *** Review: MUST: The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a duplicate. OK MUST: The spec file for the package is legible and macros are used consistently. OK MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. OK MUST: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}. OK MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines. OK MUST: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. ?? - src/compiler/parser contains GNU Bison files, that permit relicensing when used as a part of a bigger code. - Majority of files is Apache 2.0 licensed. - 3 headers are 3 clause BSD. 3 clause BSD states: * * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright * notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the * documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution. Since the headers are included in quite many files, I'd mark everything as "ASL 2.0 and BSD" just to be on the safe side.. MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. OK ee2130e52f9aa7b03b17a91acff33b83 zorba-1.4.0.tar.gz ee2130e52f9aa7b03b17a91acff33b83 ../SOURCES/zorba-1.4.0.tar.gz MUST: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms. OK MUST: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. N/A MUST: Optflags are used and time stamps preserved. NEEDSWORK - There is an "-O3" flag that appears in the build commands and overrides the "-O2" in %{optflags}. Please get rid of it. MUST: Packages containing shared library files must call ldconfig. OK MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates or require the package that owns the directory. OK MUST: Files only listed once in %files listings. OK MUST: Debuginfo package is complete. OK MUST: Permissions on files must be set properly. NEEDSWORK MUST: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. OK MUST: All relevant items are included in %doc. Items in %doc do not affect runtime of application. NEEDSWORK - Add ChangeLog to %doc. MUST: Header files must be in a -devel package. OK MUST: Static libraries must be in a -static package. N/A MUST: If a package contains library files with a suffix then library files ending in .so must go in a -devel package. OK MUST: In the vast majority of cases, devel packages must require the base package using a fully versioned dependency. OK MUST: Packages does not contain any .la libtool archives. OK MUST: Desktop files are installed properly. N/A MUST: No file conflicts with other packages and no general names. OK SHOULD: %{?dist} tag is used in release. OK SHOULD: If the package does not include license text(s) as separate files from upstream, the packager should query upstream to include it. OK SHOULD: The package builds in mock. OK You're probably not targetting EPEL, so these don't matter: EPEL: Clean section exists. NEEDSWORK EPEL: Buildroot cleaned before install. NEEDSWORK EPEL: Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files must 'Requires: pkgconfig'. N/A -- 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