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: castor https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225637 bugzilla@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-07-06 18:07 EST ------- Package cannot be build this the current version of gcj in Fedora due to enum now being a reserved keyword. Please fix this by setting the source level or by patching the files. MUST: * package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved - not a kernel module - not shareware - is it covered by patents? - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator - no binary firmware OK, look ok to me * license field matches the actual license. OK * license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common OK (its BSD-style) * specfile name matches %{name} OK * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) OK, the md5sums match * skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK * correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK * license text included in package and marked with %doc OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK * packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK, looks OK to me * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output rpmlint castor-0.9.5-1jpp.9.src.rpm W: castor non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java OK (group warnings can be safely ignored) * changelog should be in a proper formats: OK * Packager tag should not be used OK * Vendor tag should not be used OK * Distribution tag should not be used OK * use License and not Copyright OK * Summary tag should not end in a period OK * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK * specfile is legible OK * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X package does not build * BuildRequires are proper ? Will check when it builds properly * summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters X Can you make line 134 multiple lines instead? * specfile written in American English OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary OK * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible * don't use rpath * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) * GUI apps should contain .desktop files * should the package contain a -devel sub-package? * use macros appropriately and consistently OK * don't use %makeinstall OK * install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot} OK * locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK * package should probably not be relocatable * package contains code OK * package should own all directories and files * there should be no %files duplicates * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK * %clean should be present OK * %doc files should not affect runtime * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs ? Waiting until package builds properly * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs ? waiting until package builds properly SHOULD: * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ? * package should build on i386 ? * package should build in mock ? -- 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