[Bug 225924] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-daemon

[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 report.

Summary: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-daemon


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225924





------- Additional Comments From pcheung at redhat.com  2007-03-16 13:26 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
...
> * license is open source-compatible.
>  - use acronyms for licences where common
> OK, license field should probably remove the 2.0 due to rpmlint errors
Done

> X summary should be more than just the package name

Fixed

> * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
>  - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
> rpmlint jakarta-commons-daemon-1.0.1-6jpp.2.src.rpm
> W: jakarta-commons-daemon non-standard-group System/Boot
> W: jakarta-commons-daemon invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0
> 
> the 2.0 in the license can probably be removed to get rid of the warning
Done
> * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
> X summary is just package name
Fixed
> rpmlint jakarta-commons-daemon-1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> W: jakarta-commons-daemon non-standard-group System/Boot
> W: jakarta-commons-daemon invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0
> X the 2.0 can probably be removed from the License field

Done
> 
> rpmlint
>
/var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-mwringe/result/jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc-1.0.1-6jpp.2.fc7.x86_64.rpm
> W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
> W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc invalid-license Apache Software License 2.0
> W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
> W: jakarta-commons-daemon-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm
> X don't have rm in the javadoc post and postun
Done

New spec file checked into cvs.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.