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: avalon-logkit https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225306 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-09 15:28 EST ------- (In reply to comment #2) > MUST: > X rpmlint on avalon-logkit srpm gives no output > > W: avalon-logkit non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > Perhaps: System Environment/Libraries ? > It seems acceptable to use Development/Libraries/Java as the Group field, please see: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00070.html > * 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) > Fixed. > . do we need section free? > Got rid of it. > * 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? > Yes, please see: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226366#c5 > X source files match upstream > . I can't find the tarball. Also, Source0 can be the actual URL ending with the > tar.gz. > Fixed Source0 URL. > * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 (it's building on > the other arches in Fedora Core presently) > > X BuildRequires are proper > . are things in coreutils (/bin/rm, /bin/ln) necessary in Requires(post{,un})? > Yes, please see: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2007-February/msg00076.html > * 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? Please see the second part of the following comment: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928#c5 > * 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 > * final provides and requires are sane > > $ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm > avalon-logkit-1.2.jar.so > avalon-logkit = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7 > > $ rpm -qp --provides i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm > avalon-logkit-javadoc = 0:1.2-4jpp.4.fc7 > > $ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-1.2-4jpp.4.fc7.i386.rpm > /bin/sh > /bin/sh > avalon-framework >= 0:4.1.4 > java-gcj-compat > java-gcj-compat > jdbc-stdext > jms > libc.so.6 > libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3) > libdl.so.2 > libgcc_s.so.1 > libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0) > libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0) > 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) > servlet > > $ rpm -qp --requires i386/avalon-logkit-javadoc-1.2-4jpp.4.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 I've built avalon-framework (which has avalon-logkit as a BuildRequire) and it builds fine. > 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 I did a scratch build in brew with the new spec file and it builds fine. -- 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