[Bug 727670] Review Request: simplevalidation - A simple library for retrofitting user-interface input validation to Swing applications

[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=727670

--- Comment #6 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako at redhat.com> 2011-10-02 06:12:58 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output:
simplevalidation-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs ->
Java docs, Java-docs, Avocados
simplevalidation-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/javadoc/simplevalidation/javadoc/package-list
simplevalidation-javadoc.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/javadoc/simplevalidation/javadoc/stylesheet.css
simplevalidation.noarch: E: summary-too-long C A simple library for
retrofitting user-interface input validation to Swing applications
simplevalidation.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US validators ->
liquidators
simplevalidation.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US urls -> curls,
purls, hurls
simplevalidation.noarch: W: incoherent-version-in-changelog 0.4.1
['0.4-1.fc15', '0.4-1']
Simple to fix, don't care for the spelling errors.
simplevalidation.noarch: W: no-documentation
Not a real problem as the package is not providing any documentation but please
remove the empty doc macro in the files section.
[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x]  Buildroot definition is not present
[x]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[x]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv2 or CDDL
[-]  If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package is included in %doc.
[-]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    :1ecbbc482003d92263c507668b5d04ec
MD5SUM upstream package:1ecbbc482003d92263c507668b5d04ec
[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  File sections do not contain %defattr(-,root,root,-) unless changed with
good reason
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]  Package does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[x]  Package uses %global not %define
[-]  If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x]  If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
[x]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
[-]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[-]  pom files has correct add_maven_depmap

=== Other suggestions ===
[x]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.


=== Issues ===
1. Please fix the rpmlint warnings/errors.

Jon: when you do a review you're supposed to run rpmlint on the binary rpms too
not only on the spec file.

-- 
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.