Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 225942
Merge Review: jdepend
Last modified: 2010-01-09 13:03:42 EST
Fedora Merge Review: jdepend http://cvs.fedora.redhat.com/viewcvs/devel/jdepend/ Initial Owner: mwringe@redhat.com
* rpmlint jdepend.spec:38: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java - I don't think this matters jdepend.spec:53: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation - Think we'er using "Documentation" now. jdepend.spec:63: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java jdepend.spec:70: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - not needed jdepend.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install - but needed here jdepend.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 35, tab: line 31) * naming - check * NamingGuidelines * licensing BSD * osi approved? yes * included? yes * correct mentioned in specfile? yes specfile * American English - yes * legible - yes * ExcludeArch, blocking - na * BuildRequires - yes * Locales - na * shared libraries: ldconfig - na * %clean section with rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} - yes * macros - * sources - check * relocatable? Prefix: /usr? - na * files and directories - Guidelines use unversioned directory for javadoc now * owns all created directories - yes * all files listed in %files * permissions? * deffattr? - yes * no .la files - yes * .desktop for GUI applications - na * no conflicts with other packets - yes * permissable content - yes * doc - yes * large doc in -doc package - na * must not affect runtime - yes * sane scriptlets - No longer need: # for /bin/rm and /bin/ln Requires(post): coreutils Requires(postun): coreutils * subpackages with fully versioned dependency - - Guidelines specify that the javadoc package require the main package
(In reply to comment #1) > * rpmlint > > jdepend.spec:38: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java > - I don't think this matters Fixed. > > jdepend.spec:53: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation > - Think we'er using "Documentation" now. Fixed. > jdepend.spec:63: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Fixed. > jdepend.spec:70: W: rpm-buildroot-usage %prep rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > - not needed Fixed. > > jdepend.spec: W: no-cleaning-of-buildroot %install > - but needed here Fixed. > > jdepend.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 35, tab: line 31) Fixed. > > * naming - check > * NamingGuidelines > * licensing BSD > * osi approved? yes > * included? yes > * correct mentioned in specfile? yes > > specfile > > * American English - yes > * legible - yes > * ExcludeArch, blocking - na > * BuildRequires - yes > * Locales - na > * shared libraries: ldconfig - na > * %clean section with rm -rf ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT} - yes > * macros - > * sources - check > * relocatable? Prefix: /usr? - na > * files and directories > > - Guidelines use unversioned directory for javadoc now > > * owns all created directories - yes > * all files listed in %files > * permissions? > * deffattr? - yes > * no .la files - yes > * .desktop for GUI applications - na > * no conflicts with other packets - yes > * permissable content - yes > * doc - yes > * large doc in -doc package - na > * must not affect runtime - yes > * sane scriptlets > > - No longer need: > > # for /bin/rm and /bin/ln > Requires(post): coreutils > Requires(postun): coreutils Fixed. > > * subpackages with fully versioned dependency - > > - Guidelines specify that the javadoc package require the main package Fixed. Btw, I've also update to the latest 2.9.1 release.
Looks good, just this left: - Guidelines use unversioned directory for javadoc now Also, does it make sense to add a pom.xml for maven dep handling?
(In reply to comment #3) > Looks good, just this left: > > - Guidelines use unversioned directory for javadoc now Fixed. > > Also, does it make sense to add a pom.xml for maven dep handling? I don't want to add pom.xml just for the sake of having it. If there is an actual request for it I'll add it immediately.
Sounds good. APPROVED. This is a merge, so I'm closing now. However, it builds find for EL-5, so perhaps an epel branch is order?