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: maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp - Surefire is a test framework project. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227084 tbento@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|tbento@xxxxxxxxxx |pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From tbento@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-13 13:45 EST ------- > X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > - please specify tar commands to create the src tar balls > - md5sum mismatch, but diff -r shows contents are the same. Fixed. > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > - no license marked with %doc There is no licencse document included in this package. > * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) > X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output > W: maven-surefire non-standard-group Development/Java > W: maven-surefire mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 59) Fixed. > X specfile is legible > - should have %define _with_gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec file, please > get rid of %define _with_gcj_support 0 and %define gcj_support 0 > - the %define gcj_support .... doesn't seems like it can be split up > into multiple lines > - for the %post and %postun, the if condition should probably be before the > the %post[,un] so that there won't be an empty %post[,un] if gcj_support is 0. > - don't we need to define _without_maven in the spec file as well? Fixed. I've also built this package on mock. Here are the links to the updates spec file and source rpm: SPEC FILE: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/251/maven-surefire.spec SOURCE RPM: https://tbento.108.redhat.com/files/documents/177/252/maven-surefire-1.5.3-2jpp.1.src.rpm -- 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