Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: maven2-common-poms-1.0-3jpp - Common poms for maven2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227079 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt@xxxxxxxxxx |dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-13 11:52 EST ------- Lines marked with X need to be fixed. ? lines should be looked at if possible. MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} X verify source and patches . we really need to host the source tarball somewhere other than just in the SRPM. Even just on your people page is fine. The XML file as well. X skim the summary and description for typos, etc. . "maven2 dependent" -> "maven2-dependent" * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used appropriately X license text included in package and marked with %doc . since you're maintaining the source, can you include the ASL text? * package(s) meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on maven2-common-poms-1.0-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm gives no output W: maven2-common-poms non-standard-group Development/Java . safe to ignore * changelog fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * License used and not Copyright * Summary tag does not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X BuildRequires are proper . why the Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils? There's no %postun. * summary is a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary * lines are <= 80 characters (except buildroot which is fine) * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * no %makeinstall * no locale data ? consider using cp -p on line 5 of %install * no Requires(pre,post) * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs present * %clean present * %doc files do not affect runtime . adding ASL.txt won't affect this * not a web app * final provides and requires sane * rpmlint on the binary RPMs: SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc * package builds on i386 ? package builds in mock . it's just building in mock now ... I don't anticipate a problem -- 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