[Bug 262401] Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations

[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: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401





------- Additional Comments From rjones at redhat.com  2008-05-02 03:56 EST -------
+ rpmlint output

  jcip-annotations.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
  jcip-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation
  jcip-annotations.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
  jcip-annotations-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation

  The Java guidelines are all over the place on the usage of 'Group:'.
  I would rename 'Development/Libraries/Java' -> 'Development/Libraries'
  and leave the other one alone.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
  CC-BY
+ license matches the actual package license
- %doc includes license file

  You need to add %doc ..../package.html to the main package.

+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  0a63cc4bca4a045aa56f3a12857857ea
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
n/a does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
n/a files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
  ... but javadoc subpackage is OK
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
n/a packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
  Reviewer built it in Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=592450
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin

==============

Please add the %doc line, and if necessary rename the groups.  If you present
an updated package with these changes then there shouldn't be any issue getting
approval.

-- 
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, or are watching someone who is.