fedora-review granted: [Bug 225932] Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Bug 225932: Merge Review: jakarta-commons-launcher
Product: Fedora Extras
Version: devel
Component: Package Review

Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim at redhat.com> has granted Thomas Fitzsimmons
<fitzsim at redhat.com>'s request for fedora-review:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225932

------- Additional Comments from Thomas Fitzsimmons <fitzsim at redhat.com>
MUST:
* is this appropriate for Fedora?
X rpmlint on all rpms gives no output

  $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
  W: jakarta-commons-launcher non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

  $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm
  W: jakarta-commons-launcher non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

  $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm
  W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc non-standard-group
Development/Documentation
  W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
  W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc percent-in-%postun
  W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm

  $ rpmlint jakarta-commons-launcher-debuginfo-1.1-1jpp.1.fc7.i386.rpm

  These are all OK for the reasons Fernando cites here:

  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225928

  But this one is a bug:
  W: jakarta-commons-launcher-javadoc percent-in-%postun

  You need this patch:

--- jakarta-commons-launcher.spec	9 Feb 2007 03:56:28 -0000	1.16
+++ jakarta-commons-launcher.spec	9 Feb 2007 17:06:05 -0000
@@ -147,7 +147,7 @@
 fi
 
 %if %{gcj_support}
-%{post}
+%post
 if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ]
 then
   %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db
@@ -155,7 +155,7 @@
 %endif
 
 %if %{gcj_support}
-%{postun}
+%postun
 if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ]
 then
   %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db

* package is named appropriately
* specfile name matches %{name}
* package meets packaging guidelines.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
* specfile is legible
* source files match upstream
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
* find_lang usage correct
* package is not relocatable
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
* %doc files don't affect runtime
* gcj .so files need not be in a -devel sub-package
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
* desktop file
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
* binary RPMs function on x86
* final provides and requires are sane

SHOULD:
* package includes license text
* description and summary sections don't have translations (OK)
* package builds in mock
* package builds on i386
* package functions as described
X scriptlets should be sane

  See above about fixing %{post} and %{postun} references.

* no -devel package
* no pkgconfig files

I'm marking this as fedora-review+.  Please build the fixed packages into Brew.

 Once they hit Rawhide, I'll close this RAWHIDE.