[Bug 386661] Review Request: writer2latex - OpenOffice.org to LaTeX/XHTML filter

[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: writer2latex - OpenOffice.org to LaTeX/XHTML filter


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=386661





------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2007-11-30 02:27 EST -------
Sorry for being slow to act here; I've been really ill this week and just
haven't been up to sitting at a computer.

Summary
=======
Remove javadoc scriptlets.
Possibly protect the remaining scriptlets against failure.
Fix BuildRoot:.

Comments
========
I'll ignore the debuginfo bits for now.  There's nothing this package can do to
fix the issue and disabling debuginfo generation would be wrong, so everything's
fine as is.  Java-using packages may all need a rebuild once the issue gets
fixed, bbut that has no bearing on this review.

I made some inquiries on fedora-devel about the javadoc scriptlets; the result
seems to be that we really don't want them.  You can make the symlink if you
like and simply include it in the package.  Or not.  But there's no point in
messing with the link at install/remove time.

I'll admit to not understanding the point of the gcj_support stuff in Fedora
given that you can't pass flags to the buildsys, but it's common to java
packages for whatever reason so I guess it's acceptable, but the spec would be a
good bit simpler without it.  I'll have to see if I can't get some feedback on
that as well.

The BuildRoot: is not correct.  Minimally, %{release} needs to be in there.  See
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#BuildRoot

You include COPYING.TXT twice; I guess technically that violates the "no
duplicates in %files" rule but while it's not really necessary I don't see it as
a problem.

I don't know enough about unopkg to know if it can ever fail.  If it can, you'll
need to protect the three openiffice.org-* scriptlets against failure.

I guess the same goes for the rebuild-gcj-db calls.

rpmlint output
==============
  openoffice.org-writer2latex.x86_64: W: class-path-in-manifest 
   /usr/share/writer2latex.uno.pkg/writer2latex.jar
  writer2latex.x86_64: W: class-path-in-manifest 
   /usr/share/java/writer2latex-0.5.jar
OK as discussed earlier.

  writer2latex.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML
  writer2latex-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
We don't really care what goes in Group:.

  writer2latex-javadoc.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm
  writer2latex-javadoc.x86_64: W: dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
These will go away when the javadoc scriptlets are removed.

Checklist
=========
* source files match upstream:
   c1d9576bcc51105798b40c7d9273e9dbc59efb5c87fd238d97cbab9fe7eaf309  
   writer2latex05.zip
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.
* description is OK.
* dist tag is present.
X build root is not correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package.
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* compiler flags are appropriate (as far as I can tell for java)
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly
X rpmlint has complaints which will go away with the javadoc scriptlets.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  openoffice.org-writer2latex-0.5-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm
   openoffice.org-writer2latex = 0.5-3.fc9
  =
   /bin/sh
   openoffice.org-core

  writer2latex-0.5-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm
   writer2latex-0.5.jar.so()(64bit)
   writer2latex = 0.5-3.fc9
  =
   /bin/sh
   libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit)
   libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit)
   libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
   xalan-j2
   xerces-j2

  writer2latex-javadoc-0.5-3.fc9.x86_64.rpm
   writer2latex-javadoc = 0.5-3.fc9
  =
?  /bin/ln
?  /bin/rm
?  /bin/sh
  (These three will go away with the javadoc scriptlets.)

* %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files (besides COPYING.TXT, which is OK)
* file permissions are appropriate.
X javadoc scriptlets need to go; other scriptlets may need protection against 
   failure.
* code, not content.
* documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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.