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: librepository - Java Hierarchical repository abstraction layer https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=445655 tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx 2008-06-27 16:58 EST ------- Again the bogus rpmlint complaint: librepository-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation Not an issue. * source files match upstream: 6af6974e4d5ebd9c7c4eed03f140ee4d5db340550c48b794e5419bb6b4aec362 librepository-0.1.6.tar.gz * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks complete. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: librepository-0.1.6-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm librepository.jar.so()(64bit) librepository = 0.1.6-1.fc10 = /bin/sh java java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.31 jcommon jpackage-utils libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) librepository-javadoc-0.1.6-1.fc10.x86_64.rpm librepository-javadoc = 0.1.6-1.fc10 = jpackage-utils librepository = 0.1.6-1.fc10 * %check is not present; no test suite upstream. * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * code, not content. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no pre-built jars * single jar, named after the package * jarfiles are under _javadir. * javadocs are under _javadocdir. * ant called properly. * no wrapper script necessary. * gcj called properly. * gcj scriptlets are present and OK. APPROVED -- 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