Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 587646
Review Request: not-yet-commons-ssl - Library to make SSL and Java Easier
Last modified: 2010-05-06 09:16:03 EDT
Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/not-yet-commons-ssl.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/not-yet-commons-ssl-0.3.11-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: Commons-SSL let's you control the SSL options you need in an natural way for each SSLSocketFactory, and those options won't bleed into the rest of your system.
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?)
(In reply to comment #1) > 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) Done. > > 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" Done. > > 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. Fixed. > > 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?) Symlink removed. New sources: Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/not-yet-commons-ssl.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/not-yet-commons-ssl-0.3.11-2.fc12.src.rpm Description:
Looks good -- APPROVED
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: not-yet-commons-ssl Short Description: Library to make SSL and Java Easier Owners: akurtakov Branches: F-13 InitialCC:
CVS done (by process-cvs-requests.py).
Built in rawhide. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=171870