Bug 591024
Summary: | Review Request: apache-commons-io - rename of jakarta-commons-io | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | akurtako, fedora-package-review, mat.booth, notting, supercyper1 |
Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | akurtako:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
Target Release: | --- | ||
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2010-05-13 12:03:20 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 588764 |
Description
Stanislav Ochotnicky
2010-05-11 09:14:29 UTC
I'm taking this one. Spec file is in src.rpm is named differently from the standalone you have uploaded. Please upload correct src.rpm Sorry, I re-uploaded srpm with correct spec file. Review: OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. OUTPUT: apache-commons-io.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US endian -> Indian, ending, endive apache-commons-io.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/apache-commons-io Not a problem. 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. 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. 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, 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: 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 consistently use macros. OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. Javadocs subpackage. OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of the application. FIXIT: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. You should not own %{_mavendepmapfragdir} . It should be %{_mavendepmapfragdir}/* OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. OK: Package is correctly Obsoleting/Providing the old jakarta package. FIXIT:Unversioned apache-commons-io is missing. Actually unversioned commons-io.jar is missing. Fixed up: Spec URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-io.spec SRPM URL: http://sochotni.fedorapeople.org/apache-commons-io-1.4-2.fc12.src.rpm Thanks, looks good. This package is APPROVED. Thanks. Requesting CVS: New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: apache-commons-io Short Description: Java utilities to assist with developing IO functionality Owners: sochotni Branches: InitialCC: CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py). I think Epoch: 1 is not needed for a new package. Thank you. Package built, Closing. (In reply to comment #10) > I think Epoch: 1 is not needed for a new package. You are correct that it would be possible to remove Epoch. I have done so in some other packages but since this review was done with Epoch specified and package is already build... |