[Bug 191014] Review Request: ganymed

[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: ganymed


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191014





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-06-13 00:26 EST -------
Generally we fix the line endings of HTML files as well.  You can just add it to
your sed call.

There is one issue I'd like to discuss, which is the package name.  Upstream
calls this "ganymed-ssh2", and their web site implies that they are actually
developing a software project entitled "ganymed".  I have no idea whether this
will be released to the public or whether we'd eventually package it, but I am
concerned that perhaps it would be a good idea to just name this package
"ganymed-ssh2" and avoid the potentential for confusion and future conflicts.

A full review turned up a couple more minor issues:

This package places files in %libdir/gcj/ganymed but doesn't own it.

You use the %{__sed} macro, but don't use %{__rm}, %{__ln_s}, or %{__install}. 
Consistency is important, so you should either switch to plain "sed" or
macrotize the rest of the spec.

* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
X specfile is properly named and is cleanly written but does not use macros
consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
   b0ee2f0feeb5f4ae02c2d5269fe6e1e0  ganymed-ssh2-build209.zip
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
X rpmlint complains (eol encoding for faq/FAQ.html)
* final provides and requires are sane:
  ganymed-209-3.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   ganymed-209.jar.so()(64bit)
   ganymed = 209-3.fc6
  =
   /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db
   java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.33
   libgcj.so.7()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
* no shared libraries are present.
* package is not relocatable.
X owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* scriptlets present and are OK.
* code, not content.
* documentation is relatively small (30% of the package), so no -docs subpackage
is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

-- 
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.