[Bug 426867] Review Request: scala - Hybrid functional/object-oriented language

[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: scala - Hybrid functional/object-oriented language


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426867





------- Additional Comments From leamas at bredband.net  2008-01-12 04:47 EST -------
Seems that the sponsors hesitates to handle java applications in the absence of
guidelines for these apps. And I, being a rookie as you, need to show some
skills to get a sponsor. Make an informal review, that is. 

Licensing: The documentation refers to a "BSD-like" license defined in the file
docs/LICENSE. It seems to be a specific scala license, not one of the "good"
ones in wiki/Licensing.

Missing build dependencies:
   update-mime-database   shared-mime-info (post/postun)
   pkg-config             pkgconfig
   svn                    subversion

mock test fails on missing svn (subversion). After adding subversion it fails
with: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.96363: line 77: clean: command not found

The placement of the post/postun scriptlets at the very end is unusual. Normal
place is after the %install, why not stick to this?

The package includes not only the upstream source tarball, but also the binary
distribution tarball scala-2.6.1-final. This contains generated stuff (e. g.,
jar files) and raises issues whether all source is included according to
wiki/Packaging/Guidelines. It definitely breaks wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java

Package contains a devel subpackage, makes no sense in a java context and breaks
wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java. devel contains a configuration file, belongs to
another (sub) package?

Discussion: seems that java packages requires a whole lot of copying in
%install. Is this the right place, would it be better to use ant or make to
clean up the spec file, to make it look more like a normal make-based spec-file?
Is there any (other) good example of a packaged java-app out there?

OK Rpmlint is silent
OK Package name
OK Spec file name.
OK Licensing: BSD is OK (but see above).
-  License: tag matches Licensing in code - see above
OK License included in doc - see above
-  Meets Packaging guidelines - see above.
OK Spec file in American English: I'm from Sweden, but to my understanding...
OK Spec file legible
OK Source MD5sum: 34851e6b001955b169529397d499f17f upstream and in src.rpm
OK Builds on i386
OK This is platform-independent java code.
-  Build dependencies - see above
OK Locales management -  n/a, this is java code
OK Libraries - n/a
OK Not relocateble - n/a
OK Owns it's directories.
OK No %file duplicates
OK File permissions
OK %clean target
OK Consistent macro usage
OK Code/permissive content (this is just code).
OK Documentation is in separate 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.