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: xmlgraphics-commons - library of components used by batik and fop https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=332861 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-22 13:44 EST ------- - rpmlint: $ rpmlint xmlgraphics-commons-1.2-1.src.rpm $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/xmlgraphics-commons-1.2-1.noarch.rpm $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc-1.2-1.noarch.rpm xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/javadoc/xmlgraphics-commons-1.2/org/apache/xmlgraphics/xmp/merge/class-use 02755 xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/javadoc/xmlgraphics-commons-1.2/org/apache/xmlgraphics/util 02755 xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: E: non-standard-dir-perm /usr/share/javadoc/xmlgraphics-commons-1.2/org/apache/xmlgraphics/image/codec/png 02755 ... These directory permissions need to be set to 0755. xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation Please fix. xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%postun rm Please eliminate the post/postun sections by making xmlgraphics-commons-javadoc simply own (with %doc) the %{name} symlink. - package name fine - spec file name matches package name - package meets packaging guidelines - package meets licensing guidelines - license field matches actual license - license marked %doc Please mark the LICENSE file with %doc. - spec file uses American English - spec file legible Please add a comment explaining this loop: for j in $(find . -name "*.jar"); do mv $j $j.no done This is unnecessary: install -dm 755 $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} cp LICENSE $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version} ... %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/LICENSE It can be replaced with: %doc LICENSE in the base %files section. The %doc macro automatically handles installing the package's documentation directory and installing therein files specified relative to the build directory. You should also include NOTICE and README on the %doc line. - source and upstream md5sum match - package builds successfully on i386 - all build requirements listed - no locales - no shared libraries for ldconfig - not relocatable - directories: owns %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} which it creates, requires jpackage-utils for %{_javadir} into which it installs jar files - no duplicate files - -javadoc directory permissions not set properly See above. - %clean section fine - consistent use of macros - contains code - doc subpackage - docs don't affect runtime - no header files - no static libraries - no pkgconfig files - no library files - no devel package - no .la files - no desktop files - doesn't own other packages' directories - removes buildroot at start of %install - filenames valid UTF-8 - license text included - no description/summary translations available - builds in mock on i386 - other architectures not tested, but this is a noarch package, so I expect it will build on all architectures - did not test proper functioning, since this is a library Did you investigate running the test suite in %build? - scriptlets are unnecessary See above. - javadoc package doesn't require base package -- fine - no pkgconfig files - packages required, rather than individual files -- 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