[Bug 750013] Review Request: clucene09 - A C++ port of Lucene

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=750013

Jon Ciesla <limb at jcomserv.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED

--- Comment #2 from Jon Ciesla <limb at jcomserv.net> 2011-11-03 10:50:00 EDT ---
Good:

- rpmlint checks return:

Lots of bogus spelling errors and:

clucene09-core.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/clucene09-core-0.9.21b/README
The character encoding of this file is not UTF-8.  Consider converting it in
the specfile's %prep section for example using iconv(1).

clucene09-core.x86_64: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/clucene09-core-0.9.21b/LGPL.license
This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or
modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed
correctly in some circumstances.

clucene09-core.x86_64: E: incorrect-fsf-address
/usr/share/doc/clucene09-core-0.9.21b/LGPL.license
The Free Software Foundation address in this file seems to be outdated or
misspelled.  Ask upstream to update the address, or if this is a license file,
possibly the entire file with a new copy available from the FSF.

Fix these.


clucene09-core-devel.x86_64: W: only-non-binary-in-usr-lib
There are only non binary files in /usr/lib so they should be in /usr/share.

Either correct this or comment on the rational for this placement in the spec.

clucene09-core-devel.x86_64: W: no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc). You have to include
documentation files.

Fix this if you can.

- package meets naming guidelines
- package meets packaging guidelines
- license ( LGPLv2+ or ASL 2.0 ) OK, text in %doc, matches source
- spec file legible, in am. english
- source matches upstream
- package compiles on devel (x86)
- no missing BR
- no unnecessary BR
- no locales
- not relocatable
- owns all directories that it creates
- no duplicate files
- permissions ok
- %clean ok
- macro use consistent
- code, not content
- no need for -docs
- nothing in %doc affects runtime
- no need for .desktop file
- devel package ok
- no .la files
- post/postun ldconfig ok
- devel requires base package n-v-r 

Mock build in progress to test BRs.

-- 
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.