[Bug 561276] Review Request: cal10n - Compiler assisted localization library (CAL10N)

[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=561276

--- Comment #1 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster at gmail.com> 2010-02-03 06:20:13 EST ---
Review:
OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. Output:
cal10n.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US calion -> cation, ca lion,
ca-lion
cal10n.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ascii -> ASCII
cal10n.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US charset -> char set,
char-set, Charles
cal10n.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US calion -> cation, ca
lion, ca-lion
cal10n.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ascii -> ASCII
cal10n.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US charset -> char set,
char-set, Charles
cal10n.noarch: W: no-documentation
cal10n.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/cal10n
maven-cal10n-plugin.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US enum ->
menu, en um, en-um
maven-cal10n-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
4 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 10 warnings.

All of these appear to be false positives

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
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. 

Just a couple of small things:
- What's the need for the external_repo stuff at the start of %prep?
- The macro %{_mavenpomdir} expands to %{_datadir}/maven2/poms, which makes
things a bit neater

Neither is a show stopper ...

-- 
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.