[Bug 491027] Review Request: findbugs-contrib - Extra findbugs detectors

[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=491027


Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+




--- Comment #11 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako at redhat.com>  2009-06-04 05:37:16 EDT ---
Official review:

    OK: rpmlint gives the following 
eclipse-findbugs-contrib.noarch: W: no-documentation
eclipse-findbugs-contrib.noarch: W: dangling-symlink
/usr/share/eclipse/dropins/findbugs/plugins/edu.umd.cs.findbugs.plugin.eclipse_1.3.8.20090315/fb-contrib-3.8.1.jar
/usr/share/findbugs/plugin/fb-contrib-3.8.1.jar
but it's not a problem because this package creates only symlink for
integration in the eclipse-findbugs package 
    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: 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 must be included in %doc.
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. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
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, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory.
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. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. 
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: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. Separate packages
for javadoc and samples.
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. 
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
files or directories that other packages may rely upon. 
OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT). 
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 

This package is APPROVED.

-- 
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.