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=473537 Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mefoster@xxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |mefoster@xxxxxxxxx --- Comment #1 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster@xxxxxxxxx> 2008-12-17 15:16:27 EDT --- [ NB: Borrowing the review format from Jerry James ... ] It's just recently been pointed out to me that there are specific GCJ guidelines for Java packages at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines that should probably be followed here unless there's a good reason not to. MUST items: - Output of rpmlint: jcodings.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. --- Is there any documentation at all to be had from upstream? - Package name: OK - Spec file name: OK - Packaging guidelines: note the GCJ thing above - Licensing guidelines: OK X License field matches: What is the license of this? JRuby as a whole is tri-licensed as CPL/GPL/LGPL, so I'm not sure that "MIT" is the right content here - Text license file in %doc: no, but it's not shipped with the source - Spec file in American English: OK - Spec file is legible: OK - Sources match upstream: OK (checked with sha1sum) - Compiles into binary RPMs on at least one platform: OK (checked on i386) - Use of ExcludeArch: OK (I did not check other arches, but this is noarch) - All build dependencies in BuildRequires: OK - Proper locale handling: OK - ldconfig: OK - Relocatable package: OK - Own all created directories: OK - No duplicate entries in %files: OK - Proper file permissions: OK - %clean section: OK - Consistent use of macros: OK - Code or permissible content: OK - Large documentation: OK (*no* documentation actually!) - Nothing in %doc affects runtime: OK - Header files in -devel: OK - Static libraries in -static: OK - Pkgconfig files: OK - .so files in -devel: OK - -devel package requires main package: OK - No libtool archives: OK - Desktop file: OK - Don't own files/directories owned by other packages: OK - Clean buildroot in %install: OK - Filenames are UTF-8: OK SHOULD items: X Query upstream for missing license file: see the note at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text It's probably asking if they could put the license(s) into the tarball - Description and summary translations: OK - Package builds in mock: OK (checked for F-10 i386 only) - Builds on all supported architectures: did not check - Package functions as described: did not check - Sane scriptlets: OK - Subpackages require the base package: OK (n/a) - Placement of pkgconfig files: OK - File dependencies: OK -- 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