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=587646 Mary Ellen Foster <mefos...@gmail.com> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |mefos...@gmail.com AssignedTo|nob...@fedoraproject.org |mefos...@gmail.com --- Comment #1 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefos...@gmail.com> 2010-05-03 06:06:24 EDT --- Review: OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output: not-yet-commons-ssl-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs, Java-docs, Javanese 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. False positive (although you may want to change that to "API Documentation" or something) OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines . OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. FIX: The spec file must be written in American English. Typo in the description: "let's" should be "lets" OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL. 716ac79b162dc5a964d6c7ac863def46 not-yet-commons-ssl-0.3.11.zip 716ac79b162dc5a964d6c7ac863def46 not-yet-commons-ssl-0.3.11.zip.1 OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at least one primary architecture. OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings. OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). OK: Each package must consistently use macros. OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. Also: the javadoc package has its files in /usr/share/javadoc/not-yet-commons-ssl/javadocs -- that extra "javadocs" directory shouldn't be there. Is the link to commons-ssl.jar necessary at the moment? (That is, do other packages using this expect to find something called commons-ssl.jar?) -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
