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: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227044 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|overholt@xxxxxxxxxx |dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-16 12:36 EST ------- 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} * verify source and patches * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used properly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * packages meet FHS X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output $ rpmlint checkstyle-4.1-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm W: checkstyle non-standard-group Development/Build Tools Let's make this Development/Tools * changelog fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * License used and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * no PreReq * specfile is legible X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Could not find excalibur/avalon-logkit Java extension for this JVM /usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Some specified jars were not found I removed this to make it build * BuildRequires are proper * summary fine * description fine * make sure lines are <= 80 characters . I'm fine with the ones that aren't * 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 * %makeinstall not used * no locale data * cp -p used * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * 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 * not a web app * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs W: checkstyle non-standard-group Development/Build Tools W: checkstyle-demo non-standard-group Development/Build Tools These are fine but let's just make it Development/Tools W: checkstyle-demo no-documentation This is fine if there's nothing in the upstream sources E: checkstyle-javadoc zero-length /usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle-4.1/package-list Hmm, this should be fixed. W: checkstyle-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/checkstyle-manual-4.1/api /usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle This should also be fixed. W: checkstyle-manual symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/doc/checkstyle-manual-4.1/api /usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle This too W: checkstyle-optional non-standard-group Development/Build Tools See above. W: checkstyle-optional no-documentation 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