Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: puretls https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=226326 ------- Additional Comments From mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-17 15:45 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > (In reply to comment #2) > > > > > > X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) > > > Please specify URL/instructions for the Source0 src tar ball. > md5sum matches with upstream. > > > X skim the summary and description for typos, etc. > > > Do we need to mention the company in the description? > > Fixed, having the company information in there doesn't really give anything to > > the description. > > > OK. > > > * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) > > > X specfile is legible > > > - Please get rid of the section > > > - Isn't the pre-release tag 0.1.%{beta}.5jpp.1%{?dist}? (note the .1 after 0) > > Oh, good catch, this has been fixed > Great! > > > X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps > > > please use cp -p on line 139 > > Done > > > > > X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > > > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint > > > > > > /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm > > > W: puretls non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint > > > > > > /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-debuginfo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm > > > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint > > > > > > /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-demo-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm > > > W: puretls-demo non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > > W: puretls-demo no-documentation > > > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 ~]$ rpmlint > > > > > > /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-javadoc-0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm > > > W: puretls-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > > > The groups ones are OK, does the demo subpackage has any doc? > > The demo package depends on the main package which contains all the licensing > > doc information. The actual docs for how to use the demo package is in the > > INSTALL file (which for obvious reasons should not be included). I have created > > a new README file from INSTALL that explains how to use the demo. > Please mark it as %doc. done > > > > New SRPM: > > > https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/346/puretls-0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.1.src.rpm > > [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 review]$ rpmlint > /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/puretls-0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.1.fc7.x86_64.rpm > W: puretls non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > W: puretls incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.9-0.b5.5jpp.1 0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.1.fc7 > > Please fix the incoherent version in changelog warning. Fixed New srpm: https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/346/puretls-0.9-0.1.b5.5jpp.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