[Bug 473537] Review Request: jcodings - Java Libraries for Ruby String Encodings

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=473537


Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |mefoster at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mefoster at gmail.com




--- Comment #1 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster at gmail.com>  2008-12-17 15:16:27 EDT ---
[ NB: Borrowing the review format from Jerry James ... ]

It's just recently been pointed out to me that there are specific GCJ
guidelines for Java
packages at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines that should
probably be
followed here unless there's a good reason not to.

MUST items:
- Output of rpmlint:
jcodings.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
--- Is there any documentation at all to be had from upstream?
- Package name: OK
- Spec file name: OK
- Packaging guidelines: note the GCJ thing above
- Licensing guidelines: OK
X License field matches: What is the license of this? JRuby as a whole is
tri-licensed as
CPL/GPL/LGPL, so I'm not sure that "MIT" is the right content here
- Text license file in %doc: no, but it's not shipped with the source
- Spec file in American English: OK
- Spec file is legible: OK
- Sources match upstream: OK (checked with sha1sum)
- Compiles into binary RPMs on at least one platform: OK (checked on i386)
- Use of ExcludeArch: OK (I did not check other arches, but this is noarch)
- All build dependencies in BuildRequires: OK
- Proper locale handling: OK
- ldconfig: OK
- Relocatable package: OK
- Own all created directories: OK
- No duplicate entries in %files: OK
- Proper file permissions: OK
- %clean section: OK
- Consistent use of macros: OK
- Code or permissible content: OK
- Large documentation: OK (*no* documentation actually!)
- Nothing in %doc affects runtime: OK
- Header files in -devel: OK
- Static libraries in -static: OK
- Pkgconfig files: OK
- .so files in -devel: OK
- -devel package requires main package: OK
- No libtool archives: OK
- Desktop file: OK
- Don't own files/directories owned by other packages: OK
- Clean buildroot in %install: OK
- Filenames are UTF-8: OK

SHOULD items:
X Query upstream for missing license file: see the note at 
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
  It's probably asking if they could put the license(s) into the tarball
- Description and summary translations: OK
- Package builds in mock: OK (checked for F-10 i386 only)
- Builds on all supported architectures: did not check
- Package functions as described: did not check
- Sane scriptlets: OK
- Subpackages require the base package: OK (n/a)
- Placement of pkgconfig files: OK
- File dependencies: OK

-- 
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.