[Bug 176981] Review Request: itext - a PDF creation library in java

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: itext - a PDF creation library in java


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=176981





------- Additional Comments From chabotc at xs4all.nl  2006-01-16 20:07 EST -------
Is it still worth having the %define section free in the spec file? Or is it
there to keep it as close to the JPackage one as possible? Kind of looks out of
place there :-)

Licence is often written as 'MPL' and not fully "Mozilla Public Licence" (just
as GPL/BSD/LGPL etc are written shorthand), mozilla its self uses MPL too so i
think thats the example to follow, also by examples of other packages i think
the proper format would be: MPL/LGPL

Still one inconsitent version in the changelog according to rpmlint:
W: itext incoherent-version-in-changelog 0:1.3-1jpp_4 1.3-1jpp_4

rpmlint Group warnings:
W: itext-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: itext-manual non-standard-group Development/Documentation
Its either Development/Libraries, or "Documentation", Development/Documentation
unfortunatly doesn't exist. Please use "Documenation" for the 2 sub packages
with the docs.

other rpmlint warning:
W: itext-manual hidden-file-or-dir /usr/share/doc/itext-1.3/ant/.ant.properties
But this is ignorable 

The package also owns / inclues:
/usr/share/java/itext
But this is an empty directory .. is there any reason for its being there? If
not please remove

review list so far:

MUST review items:
- Builds cleanly on FC5 devel.
- Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum)
- Package name meets guidelines
- spec file name is in %{name}.spec format
- Licence (MPL/LGPL) is fedora extra's compatible & is included
- Spec file is in (american) english
- Does not list buildrequires that are excepted in the package guidelines
- All build dependencies are listed
- No ldconfig needed
- All files have proper permissions
- Package is not relocatable
- No duplicate files in %files section (but empty dir present/owned)
- No missing files in %files section
- Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
- Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines
- No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation
- No -devel package needed (though using javadoc/manual packages there not devel
packages with .a/.so/.h files)
- No directory-ownerships needed
- No gui app, so no need for a desktop file

Should items:
- Includes upstream licence(s) file (MPL-1.1.txt and lgpl.txt)
- No insane scriplets
- No unnescesarry requires

I'm running a mock build to verify in the meantime, but that will take a few
more minutes to complete. Meantime please address the above mentioned issues and
we'll be very close to FE-ACCEPT!


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.