https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1901583
--- Comment #1 from Mikolaj Izdebski <[email protected]> --- The review is ongoing, licensing is complex so it will take me some time to complete. Items marked with "+" are passed, ones marked with "-" are failed and need to be fixed or explained. + 1. spec file looks sane + 2. license tag looks fine on first glance, but due to its complexity will be evaluated later in more detail + 3. complex licensing is explained in licensing breakdown file + 4. package builds in rawhide x86_64 + 5. rpmlint identified 1 error and 112 warnings, all false-positives + 6. requires look sane + 7. provides look sane + 8. file manifest looks good, JAR files are installed in a subdirectory of /usr/share/java/ + 9. package is installable on rawhide x86_64 + 10. bundled provides were added - 11. upstream was not yet contacted about unbundling dependencies ("All packages whose upstreams have no mechanism to build against system libraries must be contacted publicly about a path to supporting system libraries.", Bundled Software Policy) - 12. automatic dependencies are not filtered ("Packages that bundle libraries must follow the AutoProvides filtering guidelines for private libraries.", Bundled Software Policy) + 13. buildrequires are correct + 14. there is no Class-path in JAR manifests + 15. the package is noarch + 16. dist tag is used correctly -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/[email protected]
