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=491579


Mattias Ellert <mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org    |mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se
               Flag|                            |fedora-review+




--- Comment #1 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ell...@fysast.uu.se>  2009-04-26 
07:38:12 EDT ---
Fedora review jjack-0.3-1.fc10.src.rpm 2009-04-26

rpmlint:

4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

* Package is named according to guidelines

* Specfile is named after the package

* The package follows the guidelines for a java package using JNI

* License is Fedora approved: LGPLv2+

* The License tags in the sources only says LGPL without version.
  According to the https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing page LGPL
  without version is equivalent to LGPLv2+. ("Note that this is
  LGPLv2+, not LGPL+, because version 2 was the first version of
  LGPL.") The version number in the LICENSE file itself is not
  relevant for (L)GPL.

* The LICENSE file is packaged as %doc

* Specfile is written in legible English

* Sources matches upstream to the extent possible (differences are documented):

$ diff -ur SRPM/jjack-0.3 jjack-0.3
Only in jjack-0.3/doc/www: mp3
Only in SRPM/jjack-0.3/doc/www: ogg

* Package compiles in mock (Fedora 10)

* BuildRequires are sane

* Package owns directories it creates

* No duplicate files

* Permissions are sane and %files has %defattr

* %clean clears buildroot

* Macros are used consistently

* Documentation is in javadoc subpackage

* %doc is not runtime essential

* Package does not own other's directories

* %install clears buildroot

* Installed files are valid UTF-8


One small suggestion: The wrapper script passes its arguments on as

$1 $2 $3 $4 $5

It is probably better to instead do

"$@"

(including the quotes). This will work better in cases where there are
empty arguments ("") or quoted arguments containing spaces, subtleties
that now get lost.


Package 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.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@redhat.com
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

Reply via email to