Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898 ------- Additional Comments From green@xxxxxxxxxx 2006-12-20 08:33 EST ------- Thanks Andrew. Here's the full review. I only have two comments. One seems easy and the other looks like a little more work. Look for the lines starting in 'X'. * package meets and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * License text included in package. * source files match upstream (extracted from upstream cvs so no md5sum available.) * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper. * package builds in mock. * rpmlint jython-2.2-0.1.a1.fc6.i386.rpm W: jython invalid-license Modified CNRI Open Source License We can ignore this. rpmlint jython-demo-2.2-0.1.a1.fc6.i386.rpm W: jython-demo invalid-license Modified CNRI Open Source License E: jython-demo no-jar-manifest /usr/share/jython/Demo/jreload/example.jar We can ignore these. rpmlint jython-javadoc-2.2-0.1.a1.fc6.i386.rpm W: jython-javadoc invalid-license Modified CNRI Open Source License We can ignore this. rpmlint jython-2.2-0.1.a1.fc6.src.rpm W: jython invalid-license Modified CNRI Open Source License We can ignore this. X are these final provides and requires are sane?: jython-2.2-0.1.a1.fc6.i386.rpm jython-2.2.jar.so jython = 2.2-0.1.a1.fc6 == java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.31 jpackage-utils >= 0:1.5 oro python >= 2.4 servlet Don't we need to Require libreadline-java and mysql-connector-java? * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required. * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present * scriptlets OK * code, not content. X ht2html generated documentation isn't being generated even though we require ht2html. I think build.xml needs one more if="full-build" removed, and then these docs should probably go in a documentation package. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app (no .desktop file required). * not a web app. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review