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=727635 --- Comment #5 from Deepak Bhole <dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx> 2011-08-02 16:37:11 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > === REQUIRED ITEMS === > > [!] Rpmlint output: > > > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:785: E: hardcoded-library-path in > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/* > > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec:818: E: hardcoded-library-path in > > /usr/lib/jvm/java-gcj/jre/lib/rt.jar > > > > Fixed. > > > > Minor suggestion (and so feel free to ignore): JDK_TO_BUILD_WITH should also be > fixed. Sure, I will keep it in mind for the next iteration. Skipping now due to time constraints. > > > > > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source14: pulseaudio.tar.gz > > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source12: desktop-files.tar.gz > > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source11: systemtap-tapset.tar.gz > > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source10: class-rewriter.tar.gz > > SPECS/java-1.7.0-openjdk.spec: W: invalid-url Source9: generated-files.tar.gz > > > > Instructions/comments addded for each. Some are not yet separate upstream > > because we need to know how well the RPM works first. Once we are certain, the > > projects will be split as needed and the urls added. > > > > It would be nice to have instructions on how to create these tarballs. > I've added them for generated-files. The rest don't really have instructions. They will when moved upstream. > > > > [!] Buildroot definition is not present > > Defining build root is depricated; it should not be defined. > > > > The new spec file still defines a buildroot. Please remove it. Removed. > > > [!] All independent sub-packages have license of their own > > javadoc subpackage does not include the LICENSE file > > > > Added to add sub-packages. > > Actually, that's not quite right. It should only be added to subpackages if it > isnt being pulled in via a dependency. If the main package has the LICENSE > file, and -devel requires the main package then devel does not need the LICENSE > file. From what I can see in the spec file, only the javadoc subpackage does > not require the main package and needs the LICENSE file. > Ah okay. Fixed. > > [!] Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided > > in the spec URL. > > I cant find the source for generated-files.tar.gz, class-rewriter.tar.gz, > > systemtap-tapset.tar.gz and pulseaudio.tar.gz - I can guess it's from icedtea6 > > or 7. > > > > They are from 7. As mentioned above, once we know that the rpm works, we will > > find a separate home for them. > > > > Any chance you can include the instructions to create these tarball? > They are there for generated files and pulseaudio. > > [!] Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} > > (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore) > > > > Please remove the %clean section. > Done. > > 1. Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary > > (freetype-devel, pulseaudio-libs-devel pulseaudio,pkgconfig) > > > > Add requires are >=, not exact. They were added after problems were found with > > lower versions. > > > > Hm.. all these packages have a higher NVR in F15. I am quite positive that the > F16 packages will be higher still. I suppose it's not an issue. > > > 3. The forest at icedtea.classpath.org/hg/icedtea7-forest is more up to date > > than hg.openjdk.java.net/icedtea/jdk7 > > > > We tested with the latter, so I kept it. Going forward, we will be switching. > > > > Yeah, this was a more FYI than anything else. > > > 6. License field contents should use 'and' or 'or' > > (http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios) > > > > Different parts ahve different licences. Neither and nor or apply. > > > > IANAL. But the text at > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Multiple_Licensing_Scenarios > suggests that 'and' should be used here: > Ah okay, changed. > """ > Example: Package bar-utils contains some files under the Python License, some > other files under the GNU Lesser General Public License v2 or later, and one > file under the BSD License (no advertising). The package spec must have: > > License: Python and LGPLv2+ and BSD > """ new spec file uploaded. -- 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