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: sinjdoc - Documentation generator for Java source code https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231732 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|overholt@xxxxxxxxxx |fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review- ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-12 16:00 EST ------- My only comment: should we Obsolete/Provide gjdoc? The only thing that needs fixing is the changelog entry. MUST: * package is named appropriately * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - yes * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * specfile name matches %{name} * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. * correct buildroot * %{?dist} used properly * license text included in package and marked with %doc * package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) * rpmlint on sinjdoc-0.5-1.src.rpm gives no output X changelog is fine - you have an extra space before the 8 ... perhaps just zero-pad it? * Packager tag not used * Vendor tag not used * Distribution tag not used * use License and not Copyright * Summary tag should not end in a period * no PreReq * 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 * specfile written in American English * no -doc sub-package if necessary * no static libs * no rpath * no config files * not a GUI app * no -devel necessary * macros used appropriately and consistently * %makeinstall not used * no locale data * no cp * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines * package not relocatable * package contains code * package owns all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions okay; %defattrs present * %clean should be present * %doc files do not affect runtime * not a web app * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/i386/sinjdoc-0.5-1.i386.rpm sinjdoc.jar.so sinjdoc = 0.5-1 * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs $ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/sinjdoc-0.5-1.i386.rpm W: sinjdoc unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/gcj/sinjdoc/sinjdoc.jar.so SHOULD: * package includes license text in the package and marks it with %doc * package builds on i386 * package builds in mock . didn't try, but Tom says it did for him -- 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