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: javahelp2 - needed for NetBeans Platform https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=439263 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review? ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-05 01:17 EST ------- A few comments as I come up to speed with reviewing Java packages using our fancy new guidelines: This builds and installs OK. rpmlint says: javahelp2.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 31) Not a big deal; fix it if you like. javahelp2.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Java This is fine; we don't really care about Group. javahelp2.src: E: no-changelogname-tag There is no changelog section at all. One is required, and the entries need to be in one of the formats from http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs javahelp2.src: W: strange-permission javahelp2-jhindexer.sh 0755 javahelp2.src: W: strange-permission javahelp2-jhsearch.sh 0755 This isn't a real problem; usually you don't depend on permissions on files extracted from the srpm but as long as they aren't mode 666 or something it's not an issue. It would be nice for you to answer Colin's question from comment 1. The summary, well, isn't really a summary. Can you come up with a 70-character summary of this package? According to the guidelines, you need an epoch on your java-devel requirement: BuildRequires: java-devel >= 1:1.6.0 The main package needs a dependency on java and the javadoc package needs at least a dependency on jpackage-utils (so that /usr/share/javadoc is owned properly). There seems to be some sort of test suite in jhMaster/JavaHelp/test. I do not know if it is something that is runnable at build time, but if it is then you need to add a %check section. * source files match upstream: 338b3888bd3b058a6d9c65ad5fe15d4effbe6c13a15d6da1c5390a06f0b69757 javahelp2-src-2.0.05.zip * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. X No changelog section. X summary isn't really a summary. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. X BuildRequires not quite right. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. X rpmlint has a valid complaint. X final provides and requires are not quite right: javahelp2-2.0.05-3.fc9.noarch.rpm javahelp2 = 0:2.0.05-3.fc9 = /bin/sh jpackage-utils >= 0:1.5.32 X (no dependency on java) javahelp2-javadoc-2.0.05-3.fc9.noarch.rpm javahelp2-javadoc = 0:2.0.05-3.fc9 = X (no dependency on jpackage-utils) ? %check is not present, but there seems to be a test suite. Can it be run at build time? * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no scriptlets present. * code, not content. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. Java-specific bits: * no pre-built jars * single jar, named after the package * jarfiles are under _javadir. * javadocs are under _javadocdir. -- 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