[Bug 517776] Review Request: gettext-ant-tasks

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Sat Aug 22 05:46:28 UTC 2009


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=517776


D Haley <mycae at yahoo.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |mycae at yahoo.com




--- Comment #1 from D Haley <mycae at yahoo.com>  2009-08-22 01:46:27 EDT ---
Some quick comments:

*In generate-tarball, please specify a specific version in the repository for
checkout. I cannot verify the MD5 without this.

*Generate tarball permission bits should be 744. (rpmlint output)

*Using svn export is probably a better idea than using find to remove .svn
after an svn co

*If you like (not required, but I like it), you can add this to the top of
generate-tarball to guard against misuse of generate-tarball:
if [ $# -ne 2 ] ; then
        echo USAGE: ./generate-tarball NAME_VERSION RELEASE
        exit 1
fi

*.java files do not appear to have LGPL licence headers, as required by the
licence. Please raise upstream bug.

*Any kind of licence files are missing. Please raise upstream bug.

*Please post rpmlint output for reviews, as well as koji builds where possible

*"Requires:       jpackage-utils" for javadoc not needed, as javadoc requires
main package which also requires jpackage-utils

*Summary should replace the word "library" with "task". 

*Should this package not require gettext-commons  (bug 515136) ? I assume that
the ant-task will fail if it cannot find the gettext jar file.

*Raise bug for upstream to provide tagged source releases in future. This will
assist maintaining sync with project releases.

-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list