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: fop-0.20.5-9jpp - XSL-driven print formatter https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227055 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-22 16:49 EST ------- - rpmlint: $ rpmlint fop-0.94-1.src.rpm $ rpmlint /notnfs/fitzsim/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/fop-0.94-1.noarch.rpm fop.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/fop-0.94.jar The Class-Path field in this manifest is added by fop-manifest.patch, but it should not be: $ rpmlint -i RPMS/noarch/fop-0.94-1.noarch.rpm fop.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/fop-0.94.jar The META-INF/MANIFEST file in the jar contains a hardcoded Class-Path. These entries do not work with older Java versions and even if they do work, they are inflexible and usually cause nasty surprises. - package name fine - spec file name matches package name - package meets packaging guidelines The BuildRoot line is non-standard. - package meets licensing guidelines - license field matches actual license - license marked %doc - spec file uses American English - spec file legible %define section devel Remove the top two lines. (cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} && for jar in *-%{version}*; do ln -sf ${jar} `echo $jar| sed "s|-%{version}||g"`; done) This should be done as a pushd/popd block. In general, spec file lines should wrap at the 80th column. - source and upstream md5sum match - package builds successfully on i386 - all build requirements listed No, none are listed. - no locales - no shared libraries for ldconfig - not relocatable - directories: - owns %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} and %{_datadir}/fop, which it creates - requires jpackage-utils for %{_javadir} into which it installs jar files - no duplicate files - permissions Replace 0644 and 0755 in the %defattr lines with - to use the default values. - %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 No. Missing BuildRequires lines cause the build to fail. - other architectures not tested, but this is a noarch package - did not test proper functioning, since fop requires batik - no scriptlets - 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 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