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: batik-1.6-2jpp - Scalable Vector Graphics for Java https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227040 ------- Additional Comments From fitzsim@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-11-22 18:28 EST ------- - rpmlint: $ rpmlint batik-1.7-1.src.rpm $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-1.7-1.noarch.rpm batik.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics Fix. batik.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License Fix. batik.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided batik-monolithic OK. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-demo-1.7-1.noarch.rpm batik-demo.noarch: W: no-documentation OK. batik-demo.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/batik/test-resources/org/apache/batik/apps/rasterizer/readOnly.png Check if this is valid. If the file is not needed it can be removed. batik-demo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/batik/contrib/rasterizertask/build.sh 0644 Fix. Users should be able to run this script to run the demos. batik-demo.noarch: E: non-executable-script /usr/share/batik/contrib/charts/convert.sh 0644 Fix. batik-demo.noarch: E: zero-length /usr/share/batik/resources/org/apache/batik/ext/awt/image/codec/properties Fix. batik-demo.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation Fix. batik-demo.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License Fix. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-javadoc-1.7-1.noarch.rpm batik-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation batik-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License batik-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm Fix all of these. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-rasterizer-1.7-1.noarch.rpm batik-rasterizer.noarch: W: no-documentation OK. batik-rasterizer.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics batik-rasterizer.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License batik-rasterizer.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/batik-rasterizer.jar Fix all of these. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-slideshow-1.7-1.noarch.rpm batik-slideshow.noarch: W: no-documentation OK. batik-slideshow.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics batik-slideshow.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License batik-slideshow.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/batik-slideshow.jar $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-squiggle-1.7-1.noarch.rpm batik-squiggle.noarch: W: no-documentation OK. batik-squiggle.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics Fix. batik-squiggle.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License Fix. batik-squiggle.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided batik-svgbrowser OK. batik-squiggle.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/batik-squiggle.jar Fix. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-svgpp-1.7-1.noarch.rpm batik-svgpp.noarch: W: no-documentation OK. batik-svgpp.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics batik-svgpp.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License batik-svgpp.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/batik-svgpp.jar Fix all of these. $ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-ttf2svg-1.7-1.noarch.rpm batik-ttf2svg.noarch: W: no-documentation OK. batik-ttf2svg.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics batik-ttf2svg.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License batik-ttf2svg.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/batik-ttf2svg.jar Fix all of these. - package name fine - spec file name matches package name - package meets packaging guidelines The BuildRoot line is non-standard. The base package description is too long. See above rpmlint errors. - package meets licensing guidelines Remove the Epoch line and all references to %{epoch}. - license field matches actual license - license marked %doc - spec file uses American English - spec file legible %define section free 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. Likewise, this line should be wrapped: cp -pr %{name}-%{version}/docs/javadoc/* $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} - source and upstream md5sum match The spec file source zip's (batik-src-1.7.zip) md5sum matches batik-src-1.7beta1.zip's md5sum. Renaming tarballs causes confusion. Instead, keep the tarball name, and change the release string to: 0.1beta1 Also, make sure that the Source0 URL actually exists. - package builds successfully on i386 - all build requirements listed - no locales - no shared libraries for ldconfig - not relocatable - directories: - owns %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} and %{_datadir}/batik, 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 - other architectures not tested but this is a noarch package - squiggle works fine - no scriptlets - all subpackages require current version of base package - 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