[Bug 516343] Review Request: metadata-extractor - JPEG metadata extraction framework

[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=516343





--- Comment #24 from Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli at gmail.com>  2009-11-10 10:15:19 EDT ---
OK - rpmlint output
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
OK - The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
OK - The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK - The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines
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 (no license file)
OK - The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and
meet the Licensing Guidelines (license is Public Domain)
NA - Every binary RPM package which stores shared library files must
call ldconfig in %post and %postun 
OK - The package MUST successfully compile and build
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1798401
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. 
b2f8d9ade3cc8008ed41ad62c1e80bc2  metadata-extractor-2.3.1-src.jar
NA - The spec file MUST handle locales properly (no translations)
NA - package not relocatable
OK - A package MUST own all directories that it creates
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
OK - Each package MUST have a %clean section
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 (javadocs in
-javadoc subpackage)
OK - IF a package includes something as %doc, it MUST not affect the runtime of
the application
NA - Header files MUST be in a -devel package (java package)
NA - Static libraries MUST be in a -static package (no static package)
NA - Packages containing pkgconfig(.pc) files MUST 'Requires: pkgconfig' 
OK - Packages MUST NOT contain any .la libtool archives
NA - Packages containing GUI applications MUST include a .desktop file 
OK - No file conflicts with other packages and no general names.
OK - At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot}
OK - All filenames in rpm packages MUST be valid UTF-8
OK - The package does not yet exist in Fedora. The Review Request is not a
duplicate.
OK - %{?dist} tag is used in release
OK - Jar file naming (versioned jar file and unversioned symlink)
OK - BuildRequires and Requires (Java and Ant Rs and BRs used consistently with
guidelines)
OK - Pre-built JAR files / Other bundled software (not present)
NEEDSWORK - Java Directory structure: all jars in %{_javadir} and all javadocs
in %{_javadocdir}
OK - Javadoc scriptlets not present

NOTES:
For -javadoc subpackage, you dont want a versioned dir and an unversioned link
pointing to that. (See https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#ant_2 ).

With that fixed, i will approve the package.

-- 
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.