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=456316 Brian Pepple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |[EMAIL PROTECTED] AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Comment #2 from Brian Pepple <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 2008-08-07 15:22:45 EDT --- MD5Sum: 4d6925a0dc7d95949325bd4d496e51cf svnClientAdapter-nb6.0.1-src.zip Good: * Source URL is canonical * Upstream source tarball verified * Package name conforms to the Fedora Naming Guidelines * Valid license tag * Buildroot has all required elements * All paths begin with macros * Files have appropriate permissions and owners * Package includes no pre-built jars * jars files are located in %{_javadir} * Package builds in koji/mock. * Package installs and uninstalls cleanly Bad: * BR should include java-devel & jpackage-utils. Refer to http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires * Group Tag is not from the official list. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/RPMGroups * rpmlint produces the following warnings: netbeans-svnclientadapter.noarch: W: no-documentation netbeans-svnclientadapter.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Java I would include the license.txt & readme.txt as %doc. -- 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
