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: jakarta-commons-el https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928 fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED OtherBugsDependingO| |163778 nThis| | ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-08 22:07 EST ------- MUST: * is this appropriate for Fedora? X rpmlint on jakarta-commons-el srpm gives no output $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/SRPMS/jakarta-commons-el-1.0-7jpp.1.src.rpm W: jakarta-commons-el non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Group should be just: "Development/Libraries". Here's a list of valid groups: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups $ rpmlint /home/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/i386/jakarta-commons-el-javadoc-1.0-7jpp.1.i386.rpm W: jakarta-commons-el-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: jakarta-commons-el-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm W: jakarta-commons-el-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Group should be just: "Documentation". Why the %post/%postun sections? %post javadoc rm -f %{_javadocdir}/%{name} ln -s %{name}-%{version} %{_javadocdir}/%{name} %postun javadoc if [ "$1" = "0" ]; then rm -f %{_javadocdir}/%{name} fi %files javadoc %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} %ghost %doc %{_javadocdir}/%{name} Why not just include the symlink in the javadoc subpackage and eliminate the use of %post, %postun and %ghost? * package is named appropriately * specfile name matches %{name} * package meets packaging guidelines. * 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 * specfile is legible * source files match upstream * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper * find_lang usage correct * package is not relocatable * package owns all directories and files * 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 * %doc files don't affect runtime * gcj .so files need not be in a -devel sub-package * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files * desktop file * not a web app. * file ownership fine * binary RPMs function on x86 * final provides and requires are sane SHOULD: * package includes license text * description and summary sections don't have translations (OK) * package builds in mock * package builds on i386 * package functions as described X scriptlets should be sane See above questions about %post and %postun sections. * no -devel package * no pkgconfig files -- 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