[Bug 462530] Review Request: jarbundler - Mac OS X JarBundler ANT Task

[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=462530


Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |loganjerry at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |loganjerry at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com>  2009-08-18 15:57:48 EDT ---
The output of rpmlint reveals a few things that should be addressed.  Don't
worry about the nonstandard groups, or the gcj-mandated use of %{_libdir}, but
everything else should be fixed.

jarbundler.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary JarBundler
jarbundler.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Java
jarbundler.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8
/usr/share/doc/jarbundler-2.0.0/example/build.xml
jarbundler-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
jarbundler.spec:9: W: non-standard-group Development/Java
jarbundler.spec:47: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
jarbundler.spec:103: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
jarbundler.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 12)
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.

MUST items:
X : rpmlint output: see above
OK: package name
OK: spec file name
OK: packaging guidelines
OK: licensing guidelines
OK: license field matches license
OK: license file in %doc
OK: spec file in American English
OK: spec file is legible
X : source matches upstream.  It appears that upstream has gone on to version
2.1.0, and uses unversioned tar balls.
OK: successful build on at least one primary architecture
NA: use of ExcludeArch
OK: all build dependencies in BuildRequires
NA: proper locale handling
NA: ldconfig in %post and %postun
NA: relocatable package
OK: own all created directories
OK: no duplication in %files
OK: good permissions on files and dirs
OK: %clean section
OK: consistent use of macros
OK: code or permissible content
NA: large documentation files in -doc subpackage
OK: nothing in %doc needed at runtime
NA: header files in -devel
NA: static libraries in -static
NA: Requires pkgconfig
NA: .so files in -devel
NA: -devel subpackage requires main package
NA: no libtool archives
NA: GUI applications have a desktop file
OK: don't own files/dirs owned by other packages
OK: clean at top of %install
OK: all filenames are valid UTF-8

SHOULD items:
NA: ask upstream to include a license file
NA: include translated description and summary fields
OK: package builds in mock (tried Fedora 11 x86_64 only)
??: package builds on all supported arches (did not check)
OK: package functions as described
OK: sane scriptlets
OK: subpackages require the main package
NA: placement of pkgconfig files
NA: file dependencies

In addition, please consider making the javadoc subpackage be noarch.  So all
that needs to be done for this to pass review is to cleanup the rpmlint
warnings and get a good match with an upstream tarball (probably by upgrading
your spec file to 2.1.0).

-- 
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.