[Bug 434827] Review Request: jcommon - java jfreereport base utility library

[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: jcommon - java jfreereport base utility library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434827





------- Additional Comments From loganjerry at gmail.com  2008-04-30 23:18 EST -------
Here's my review.  First, I'd like to know why "ant compile-xml" wasn't run.  Do
we know that none of the intended users of jcommon need the XML part?

MUST:

- rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint jcommon
$ rpmlint jcommon-javadoc
jcommon-javadoc.i386: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
$ rpmlint jcommon-1.0.12-2.fc9.src.rpm
jcommon.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab: line 4)

- package naming guidelines: OK
- spec file name matches package name: OK
- packaging guidelines: see below
- licensing guidelines: OK
- license file in %doc: OK
- spec file in American English: OK
- spec file is legible: OK
- sources match upstream: OK
- binary RPM build on at least one arch: OK
- ExcludeArch used appropriately: OK
- All build dependencies in BuildRequires: OK for what is built.  If we also
build the XML jar, then a BuildRequires of "jaxp" is also necessary.  The
package containing jcommon-xml.jar (which I think should be a subpackage) also
needs to Require jaxp in that case.
- Handles locales properly: OK
- Calls ldconfig if necessary: OK
- Relocatable: OK
- Owns all directories it creates: OK
- No duplicate %files entries: OK
- Permissions on files: OK
- Clean section in spec file: OK
- Consistent use of macros: OK
- Code or permissible content: OK
- Large documentation: OK
- Documentation not needed to run: OK
- Header files in -devel: OK
- Static libraries in -static: OK
- Proper use of pkgconfig: OK
- .so files in -devel: OK
- -devel requires main package: OK
- No .la archives: OK
- Desktop file: OK
- Don't own directories owned by others: OK
- Delete buildroot before install: OK
- All filenames in UTF-8: OK

SHOULD:
- License file: OK
- Summary and description translations: OK
- Builds in mock: OK
- Compiles on all architectures: cannot check
- Package functions as described: OK
- Sane scriptlets: OK
- Subpackages require main package: NO, the javadoc subpackage does not do this
- Placement of pkgconfig files: OK
- File dependencies: OK

Packaging guidelines:
The Java and GCJ guidelines are followed, except that they want the javadoc
subpackage to Require both jpackage-utils and the main package.  This is not
listed as a MUST.

Summary: as long as the jcommon-xml.jar file is produced or a rationale for why
it should not be is offered, the only failing items are SHOULD items.  The
failing SHOULD items are:
- Mixed use of tabs and spaces in the spec file
- Javadoc subpackage does not Require jpackage-utils and the main 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.