Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464013 Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mefoster@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #4 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-15 05:14:22 EDT --- I asked on fedora-packaging about this package, and got the (grudging) response that it would be okay, *if* the bcel maintainer is also okay with it: https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-December/msg00027.html The bcel maintainer seems to be Permaine Cheung <pcheung at redhat.com> -- I've added him to the CC. That aside, here's my review: * source files match upstream. 3b3d451664855b0c9aae15dd05b69bf1063d8a1d bcel-5.2-src.tar.gz patch is modified, but the differences are documented (but see below) * package meets versioning guidelines. X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. I'm not sure about this -- should it be findbugs-bcel or bcel-findbugs? * summary is OK. X description Should probably mention the findbugs aspect in the description somewhere * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license is included as %doc * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper X compiler flags are appropriate. If you're using javac directly, maybe you should use the %{_javac} macro Similarly, you can use %{_jar} instead of jar * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * debuginfo package looks good * rpmlint is silent (except for Group tags which are apparently okay) * final provides and requires are sane * 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. * no generically named files * code, not content. * javadoc package looks right * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no static libraries. * no libtool .la files. Regarding the modified patch -- the original version from findbugs seems to also create a file src/java/org/apache/bcel/classfile/AbstractLocalVariableTable.java but the modified patch in the SRPM doesn't. Is there a reason for that? -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review