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: bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp - Streaming API for XML https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227041 vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx |mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-13 23:34 EST ------- (In reply to comment #1) > rpmlint bea-stax-1.2.0-0.rc1.2jpp.src.rpm: > W: bea-stax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Group warnings ignored Ignore > W: bea-stax invalid-license Apache Software License 2 Fixed > W: bea-stax mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 51) Fixed > > rpmlint rpms: > W: bea-stax non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Group warnings ignored > W: bea-stax invalid-license Apache Software License 2 fixed reverted to ASL > W: bea-stax no-documentation > W: bea-stax-api summary-ended-with-dot The StAX API. > W: bea-stax-api non-standard-group Development/Documentation > W: bea-stax-api no-documentation > W: bea-stax-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > W: bea-stax-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Fixed by removing post postun magic for javadoc handling and adding a proper owned unversioned directory > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > X - release tag does not follow guidelines > X - all jpp packages need to have %{?dist} added at the end Fixed - 0:1.2.0-0.1.rc1.2jpp.1%{?dist} now > X not a proper license tag, remove the '2' Done > > * specfile name matches %{name} > * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > > X source md5sums match, but project is no longer on project website > should probably change source link to the following, where the package still > exists > http://dist.codehaus.org/stax/distributions/stax-src-1.2.0_rc1-dev.zip Done, thanks for the URL > X buildroot does not follow fedora guidelines > - should be: > %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) Done > X dist not used, but needs to be added since jpp package > > * license text included in package and marked with %doc > X license test not included in package Fixed, added ASF2.0.txt from the source tar ball > * Packager tag should not be used > X this should be removed > > * Vendor tag should not be used > X this should be removed Fixed > X too many commented lines Fixed. > > * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 > * BuildRequires are proper > X missing build requires. This package is at very least missing ant Package builds on mock so I assume this is fixed :) Package available at: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/bea-stax/bea-stax-1.2.0-0.1.rc1.2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm Spec: http://tequila-sunrise.ath.cx/rpmreviews/F7/bea-stax/bea-stax.spec -- 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