Spec URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/ikvm.spec SRPM URL: http://www.ic.uach.cl/mhenriquez/fedora10-monoRPMS/ikvm-0.38.0.4-3.2.src.rpm Description: This package provides IKVM.NET, an open source Java compatibility layer for Mono, which includes a Virtual Machine, a bytecode compiler, and various class libraries for Java, as well as tools for Java and Mono interoperability.
Have had a quick look at this... Looks like you're distributing a binary distribution when the source is available. Could you repackage using the source so that it can be built correctly for Fedora? Also: - You have the URL as 'http://www.ikvm.net' when it should really be the full URL to the source tarball or zip file. Something like 'http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ikvm/ikvm-0.40.0.1.zip'. - Please run 'rpmlint' on the SPEC and SRPM files and correct any errors found - You need to use macros instead of things like '${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}/usr/lib/ikvm'. i.e. ${RPM_BUILD_ROOT}%{_libdir}/ikvm. (On a Fedora or RHEL box, have a look at /usr/lib/rpm/macros) - The use of here documents is discouraged, please include the file as SOURCE1. - The changelog is empty. For the first package release, it should be something like: * Wed Feb 11 2009 Mauricio Henriquez (buhochileno) - 0.38.0.4-3.2 Initial Packaging I'll review again when the above is addressed. Thanks CC
(In reply to comment #1) > Have had a quick look at this... Looks like you're distributing a binary > distribution when the source is available. Could you repackage using the > source so that it can be built correctly for Fedora? > > Also: > - You have the URL as 'http://www.ikvm.net' when it should really be the full > URL to the source tarball or zip file. Something like > 'http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ikvm/ikvm-0.40.0.1.zip'. Note, URL: should remain http://www.ikvm.net Source0: should be changed to something like http://downloads.sourceforge.net/ikvm/ikvm-0.40.0.1.zip
Ah, thanks for the clarification :)
PING It's been almost a year with no progress; This bug should be closed soon if there is no response, shouldn't it?
Due to the lack of response, this review is now considered as stalled. I'm closing this bug just as described in Fedora's Policy for stalled package reviews: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Policy_for_stalled_package_reviews