Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: regexp https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366 ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-08 20:37 EST ------- MUST: X rpmlint on regexp srpm gives no output W: regexp non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ? * package is named appropriately * specfile name matches %{name} X package meets packaging guidelines. . BuildRoot incorrect. As per this: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot it should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) . do we need section free? * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English X specfile is legible . do we still need the crazy gcj_support line? X source files match upstream . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the tar.gz. * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on the other arches in Fedora Core presently) X BuildRequires are proper . why is jpackage-utils in Requires(pre,post)? * no locale data so no find_lang necessary * package is not relocatable X package owns all directories and files . why is the javadoc symlink not just made in %install and then added to the %file section? * no %files duplicates * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * no large docs so no -doc subpackage . javadoc package present * %doc files don't affect runtime * shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required. * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * no desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine X final provides and requires are sane $ rpm -qp --provides i386/regexp-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm regexp-1.4.jar.so regexp = 0:1.4-3jpp.1.fc7 $ rpm -qp --provides i386/regexp-javadoc-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm regexp-javadoc = 0:1.4-3jpp.1.fc7 Do we need a 'java' dependency somewhere? Does the (erroneous, I think) Requires(pre,post) on jpackage-utils imply a regular Requires on it? Do we need things in coreutils (rpm, ln) in Requires(post,postun)? $ rpm -qp --requires i386/regexp-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6 libc.so.6 libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) libdl.so.2 libgcc_s.so.1 libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) libgcj_bc.so.1 libm.so.6 libpthread.so.0 librt.so.1 libz.so.1 rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rtld(GNU_HASH) $ rpm -qp --requires i386/regexp-javadoc-1.4-3jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm /bin/ln /bin/rm /bin/rm /bin/sh /bin/sh rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 SHOULD: * package includes license text * package builds on i386 ... and others in brew ATM; I don't envision a problem here X package functions . I don't know how to test this package X package builds in mock my mock setup doesn't seem to be working but I don't anticipate any problems here as the package currently builds fine in brew -- 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