Product: Fedora https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=877114 --- Comment #8 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to comment #7) > hi Peter > can you post your Jitsi build problems with smack? I'm afraid this would be a bit prematurely :) since I'm not a familiar with Java development stack. Let's review this package first. And here is my REVIEW: REVIEW: Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable + rpmlint is silent work ~/Desktop: rpmlint smack-* smack.noarch: E: explicit-lib-dependency jzlib ^^^ false positive triggered by a substring "lib". smack.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s smack.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US integrations -> integration, integration's, integration s ^^^ false positives as well. 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings. work ~/Desktop: + The package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. + The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec. + The package meets the Packaging Guidelines (see also https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java ). + The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the Licensing Guidelines. + The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license (Apache 2.0). + The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included in %doc (README.html). + The spec file is written in American English. + The spec file for the package is legible. + The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. work ~/Desktop: sha256sum smack_src_3_2_2.tar.gz* 810582f4e0adaf2265822f7ee276cd264e201291812473abcaf95fbebf796cc1 smack_src_3_2_2.tar.gz 810582f4e0adaf2265822f7ee276cd264e201291812473abcaf95fbebf796cc1 smack_src_3_2_2.tar.gz.new work ~/Desktop: + The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. See koji link above. + All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires. 0 No need to handle locales. 0 No shared library files. + The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries. + The package is not designed to be relocatable. + The package owns all directories that it creates. + The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. + Permissions on files are set properly. + The package consistently uses macros. + The package contains code, or permissible content. 0 No extremely large documentation files. + Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the application. 0 No header files. 0 No static libraries. 0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files. 0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1). 0 No devel sub-package. + The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives. 0 Not a GUI application. + The package does not own files or directories already owned by other packages. + All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8. APPROVED. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. Unsubscribe from this bug https://bugzilla.redhat.com/token.cgi?t=kPrzNrh3Qn&a=cc_unsubscribe _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review