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=592614 --- Comment #3 from Mat Booth <fed...@matbooth.co.uk> 2010-05-21 11:40:43 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > Since this is required I acknowledge that this is re-review > > OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the > review. > > apache-commons-launcher.src: W: invalid-url Source0: > commons-launcher-1.2-src.tar.gz > apache-commons-launcher.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/maven/fragments/apache-commons-launcher > apache-commons-launcher-javadoc.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided > jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > > False positives, Source0 explained and OK too. I would like to see at > least part of that reasoning in the spec file so perhaps next > maintainer will know he can start using normal release instead of SVN > Yes, I should have just added that text to the SPEC file. Best to be explicit about what I've done. > FAIL: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . > > Check the package naming guidelines on snapshot please. > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#SnapshotPackages > > From your explanation I believe this is not pre-relase, but post > release package. Therefore there should be something like: > Release: 1.20100518svn936225 > Fair enough, I've changed this. > You can drop the release number of course.. > > 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. > OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in > its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the > package must be included in %doc. > OK: The spec file must be written in American English. > 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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at > least one primary architecture. > OK: If the package does not successfully compile, build or work on an > architecture, then those architectures should be listed in the spec in > ExcludeArch. Each architecture listed in ExcludeArch MUST have a bug filed in > bugzilla, describing the reason that the package does not compile/build/work > on > that architecture. The bug number MUST be placed in a comment, next to the > corresponding ExcludeArch line. > OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any > that > are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion > of > those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense. > OK: The spec file MUST handle locales properly. This is done by using the > %find_lang macro. Using %{_datadir}/locale/* is strictly forbidden. > OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries. > OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create > a > directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create > that > directory. > 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. Executables should be set with > executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > OK: Each package must consistently use macros. > OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of > large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to > size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). > OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of > the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly > if it is not present. > OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. > The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own > the > files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for > example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the > files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that > you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, > then please present that at package review time. > OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > > Other: > I checked Obsoletes/Provides and they are good > > So please explain or change the package naming and they I can approve your > package. I have also corrected the dep-map names. New SPEC/SRPM: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/apache-commons-launcher.spec http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/apache-commons-launcher-1.1-5.20100521svn936225.fc13.src.rpm -- 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
