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: eclipse-rpm-editor - RPM Specfile editor for Eclipse https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=253434 ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-08-27 15:06 EST ------- Okay, everything is perfect except for one small nit in the desription. Thanks! MUST items: OK package is named appropriately OK is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? OK license field matches the actual license. OK license is open source-compatible. OK specfile name matches %{name} OK verify source and patches NEEDS_FIXING skim the summary and description for typos, etc. - "... RPM specfiles maintenance ..." -> "... maintenance of RPM specfiles ..." OK correct buildroot OK if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form OK license text included in package and marked with %doc OK keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing OK packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - I'm fine with the odd permissions on the fetch script OK changelog should be in one of these formats: [...] 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 OK BuildRequires are proper OK summary should be a short and concise description of the package OK description expands upon summary OK make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK specfile written in American English OK make a -doc sub-package if necessary OK should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK 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) OK consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK package should probably not be relocatable OK package contains code OK package should own all directories and files OK there should be no %files duplicates OK file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK %clean should be present OK %doc files should not affect runtime OK verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/x86_64/eclipse-rpm-editor-0.1.0-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm org.eclipse.linuxtools.rpm.rpmlint_0.0.1.jar.so()(64bit) org.eclipse.linuxtools.rpm.ui.editor_0.0.1.jar.so()(64bit) eclipse-rpm-editor = 0.1.0-2.fc8 $ rpm -qp --requires ../RPMS/x86_64/eclipse-rpm-editor-0.1.0-2.fc8.x86_64.rpm /bin/sh /bin/sh eclipse-changelog >= 2.5.1 eclipse-platform >= 3.3.1 java-gcj-compat java-gcj-compat libc.so.6()(64bit) libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.2.5)(64bit) libdl.so.2()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libm.so.6()(64bit) libpthread.so.0()(64bit) librt.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) rpmdevtools rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 rpmlint >= 0.81 rtld(GNU_HASH) OK run rpmlint on the binary RPMs (no output) SHOULD items: OK package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc ? package should build on i386 (I tried x86_64) ? package should build in mock -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review