[Bug 820361] Review Request: java-atk-wrapper - Java ATK Wrapper

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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=820361

--- Comment #7 from jiri vanek <jvanek@xxxxxxxxxx> 2012-05-10 08:08:53 EDT ---
SHOULD: The description and summary sections in the package spec file should
contain translations for supported Non-English languages, if available. [26]
ok - not inlcuded. This is mentioned as dependence package, so there isno need
for more translations
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package builds in mock. [27]
builds ok after fixed BuildRequires as mentioned
SHOULD: The package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
architectures. [28]
ok - tested on x8664 and i386
SHOULD: The reviewer should test that the package functions as described. A
package should not segfault instead of running, for example.
I have tried, and I was unable to verified. I have included ptisnovs a openjdk
QA to test this. But we have faield to verify even old java-access-bridge
If you have any more ideas how to enable it and verify it I will be very glad
SHOULD: If scriptlets are used, those scriptlets must be sane. This is vague,
and left up to the reviewers judgement to determine sanity. [29]
ok-nothing like this included
SHOULD: Usually, subpackages other than devel should require the base package
using a fully versioned dependency. [21]
ok - nothing like that
SHOULD: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files depends on their usecase, and
this is usually for development purposes, so should be placed in a -devel pkg.
A reasonable exception is that the main pkg itself is a devel tool not
installed in a user runtime, e.g. gcc or gdb. [30]
ok - no pkgconfig gile?
SHOULD: If the package has file dependencies outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin,
/usr/bin, or /usr/sbin consider requiring the package which provides the file
instead of the file itself. [31]
ok - no files dependences
SHOULD: your package should contain man pages for binaries/scripts. If it
doesn't, work with upstream to add them where they make sense.[32]
No manual pages. In this case I miss some more info how to enable this (for ANY
 jvm)

-- 
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



[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]