[Bug 227075] Review Request: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Fri Feb 16 15:57:14 UTC 2007


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: jtidy-1.0-0.20000804r7dev.6jpp - HTML syntax checker and pretty printer


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227075


overholt at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com         |dbhole at redhat.com




------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-02-16 10:56 EST -------
Updated spec and SRPM:

http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy.spec
http://overholt.ca/fedora/jtidy-1.0-0.1.r7dev.1jpp.1.src.rpm

(In reply to comment #15)
> X * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
>   - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
>   Perhaps change group for javadoc to "Documentation".. ? I will not block on
> this though

Done.

> X * Vendor tag should not be used
>   Tag is still there
> 
> X * Distribution tag should not be used
>   Tag is still there

Fixed, fixed.

> X * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
>   Lines in %install use cp -a .. consider using cp -ap

Done.

> X * package should own all directories and files
>   /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils and it should be a requirement

Fixed.

> X * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
>   Missing a "Requires: xml-commoms-apis" ?

There is a Requires: xml-commons-apis already.

> - Need to put %define gcj_support 1 at the top of the spec

I've changed the crazy conditional gcj_support line to just be gcj_support 1

> - 's' after the '-' in BSD-style should be capital

Fixed.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list