https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873738 Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx Assignee|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx Flags| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk@xxxxxxxxxx> --- I didn't do a full review, just took a quick look at the spec file. There are a few problems, that should be enough for now. 1. Pre-release packages should have the .svnXXX suffix in Release field, not in Version. They should be "Version: 1.0.2" and "Release: 0.1.svn20121003". See: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_packages 2. License tag is wrong. Should be "License: Sequence" See: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2012-November/002003.html 3. Javadoc package should not require the main package. 4. According this comment: > # I really don't understand why _mavendepmapdir doesn't work as expected: > #%{_mavendepmapdir} It should be %{_mavendepmapfragdir} 5. License file should be installed with javadoc package too. 6. %update_maven_depmap is unneeded. %post and %postun scriplets should be removed (along with corresponding Requires). 7. Jar file should be installed unversioned, i.e. %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar. Symlink should not be installed. 8. Uhe URL tag is supposed to be used by users, so it should contain address of a home website, not SVN repo. 9. Packages should use upstream build method. Upstream uses gradle. Is there any reason to use ant with custom build.xml instead? 10. There is "BuildRequires: jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6". Fedora ships version 1.6 (or later) since 2004-12-01. IMO there is no reason for versioned requires in this case. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review