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: objectweb-asm - Version 3.0 of the ObjectWeb ASM https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254008 ------- Additional Comments From loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx 2007-11-30 15:56 EST ------- This package fails 3 MUST items. They are as follows: [1] LICENSE.txt must be included as a documentation file. [2] README.txt and LICENSE.txt both must have their end-of-line encodings fixed. [3] The package xml-commons-apis (or maybe just jaxp) is both a BuildRequires and a Requires, due to its use in the org.objectweb.asm.xml package. Here is the rpmlint output for this package: [jamesjer@localhost ~]$ rpmlint objectweb-asm objectweb-asm.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/objectweb-asm-3.1/README.txt objectweb-asm.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java objectweb-asm.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/objectweb-asm/asm-xml-3.1.jar [jamesjer@localhost ~]$ rpmlint objectweb-asm-javadoc objectweb-asm-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation MUST items: - rpmlint output: FAIL, see #2 above - package naming: OK - spec file name: OK - packaging guidelines: OK - licensing guidelines: OK - license matches: OK - package contains license file: FAIL, see #1 above - spec file in American English: OK - spec file legible: OK - sources match upstream: OK - package compiles and builds into binary RPMs: OK - appropriate ExcludeArch tags: OK - all build requirements listed: FAIL, see #3 above - locales: OK - correct use of ldconfig: OK - relocatable package: OK - package owns directories: OK - no duplicate files in %files: OK - file permissions: OK - spec file has %clean section: OK - use of macros: OK - package contains code or permissible content: OK - large documentation files in a separate package: OK - files in %doc do no affect runtime: OK - header files in a -devel package: OK - static libraries in a -static package: OK - proper handling of pkgconfig files: OK - handling of .so and .so.version files: OK - -devel packages require the base package: OK - no libtool archives: OK - desktop file for GUI applications: OK - package does not own files or directories owned by others: OK - the buildroot is cleaned at the top of %install: OK - all filenames are UTF-8: OK SHOULD items: - query upstream for a missing license file: OK - description and summary translations, if available: OK - package builds in mock: FAIL, see #3 above - package builds on all supported architectures: unable to test - package functions as described: OK - sane scriptlets: OK - subpackages require the base package with a full version: NO The javadoc subpackage does not do this, but this appears to be common practice. - placement of pkgconfig files: OK - require packages instead of files: OK Also, I note that the find command in the %prep section appears to be unnecessary. The upstream distribution contains no jar 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