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: java-1.5.0-gcj - JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228960 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt@xxxxxxxxxx |fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-07 16:55 EST ------- Initial review (more to come): Comments: . I'd like to see a separate sinjdoc SRPM . around line 306 there are some "../../../../.." paths - can this be done in a less fragile manner? If not, can we get a comment that specifies why/what we're doing? . I'm fine with the commented-out plugin sections but perhaps note why we've done this . why have the %define gccver 4.1.2 commented out? is this due to the fact that it wasn't buildable until that version hit rawhide? MUST: * package is named appropriately * it is legal for Fedora to distribute this . I guess my only concern here would be the use of the word java in the name but I guess that's okay? ? license field matches the actual license. . it would be nice if there were an actual webpage ... even just a simple page listing the license and with links to source drops * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * source and patches verified . it would be nice if the j-g-c patches could be rolled upstream; or commented if that's not possible * summary and description okay * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used properly * license text included in package and marked with %doc ? packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output E: java-1.5.0-gcj hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib . justified in spec comments and in review request * changelog fine * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * License and not Copyright used * Summary tag does not end in a period * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) * specfile is legible * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 * BuildRequires are proper * summary is a short and concise description of the package * description expands upon summary * make sure lines are <= 80 characters . just the first python macro line and a %files entry or two - fine * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package necessary -- 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