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: jaxen-bootstrap-1.1-0.b7.3jpp - A convenience package for build of dom4j https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227069 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-13 17:36 EST ------- MUST: X package is named appropriately . release should be of the form 0.Z.tag.Xjpp.Y%{?dist} * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this X license field matches the actual license. . according to their website, it's Apache-style * license is open source-compatible. X specfile name matches %{name} . specfile should be jaxen-bootstrap.spec X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) . where do the xsl and xml files come from? . we should note why dom4j is needed * summary and description fine X correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) X %{?dist} needs to be added X license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output W: jaxen-bootstrap non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java . fine W: jaxen-bootstrap invalid-license Open Source X fix this W: jaxen-bootstrap unversioned-explicit-provides jaxen-bootstrap . I think this is an unnecessary provide W: jaxen-bootstrap rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT . get rid of the rm -rf line at the beginning of prep ... E: jaxen-bootstrap no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install ... and add it to the beginning of %install W: jaxen-bootstrap mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 37) X fix this (emacs M-x untabify) * changelog in okay format X Vendor tag should not be used X Distribution tag should not be used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * no PreReqs * specfile is legible X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 . I need xom to build this package ? BuildRequires are proper . I'll have to wait to build this to ensure this * summary is a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary * make sure lines are <= 80 characters * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary * no libraries * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel sub-package necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * does not use %makeinstall * no locale data ? consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps (%prep line 4 * no Requires(pre,post) * package is not be relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs present * %clean present * %doc files should not affect runtime (N/A until licence added) * not a web app X final provides and requires of the binary RPMs . remove unnecessary Provides: %{name}? . I will do the rest when I can build it X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs . I will when I can build it SHOULD: X package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc X package should build on i386 X package should build in mock -- 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