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: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401 ------- Additional Comments From rjones@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-05-02 03:56 EST ------- + rpmlint output jcip-annotations.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java jcip-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation jcip-annotations.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java jcip-annotations-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation The Java guidelines are all over the place on the usage of 'Group:'. I would rename 'Development/Libraries/Java' -> 'Development/Libraries' and leave the other one alone. + package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora CC-BY + license matches the actual package license - %doc includes license file You need to add %doc ..../package.html to the main package. + spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 0a63cc4bca4a045aa56f3a12857857ea + package successfully builds on at least one architecture n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun n/a does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage n/a files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base ... but javadoc subpackage is OK n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file n/a packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8 Optional: n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock Reviewer built it in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=592450 n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures - review should test the package functions as described n/a scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin ============== Please add the %doc line, and if necessary rename the groups. If you present an updated package with these changes then there shouldn't be any issue getting approval. -- 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