[Bug 508549] Review Request: xml-writer - Java filter class designed to work with SAX2

[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=508549


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 #1 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com>  2009-08-25 17:01:34 EDT ---
Rpmlint output:
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

MUST items:
OK: rpmlint output (see above)
OK: named according to package naming guidelines
OK: spec file name matches package name
XX: package meets packaging guidelines: You need to add a comment on the patch.
 See
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#All_patches_should_have_an_upstream_bug_link_or_comment
OK: Fedora approved license.  I wouldn't worry about that.  I found public
domain declarations in multiple files.
OK: License field matches actual license
OK: License file is included in %doc
OK: Spec file in American English
OK: Spec file is legible
OK: Sources match upstream (compare equal with md5sum)
OK: package builds into binary RPM on at least one arch (F-11 x86_64)
NA: Appropriate use of ExcludeArch
OK: All build dependencies in BuildRequires
NA: Proper handling of locales
NA: ldconfig called in %post/%postun
OK: No relocatable packages
OK: Package owns all directories it creates
OK: No duplicate listings in %files
OK: Appropriate permissions in %files
OK: Package has a %clean section with appropriate contents
OK: Consistent use of macros
OK: Code or permissible content
NA: Large documentation in a -doc subpackage
OK: No runtime dependencies in %doc
NA: Header files in -devel
NA: Static libraries in -static
NA: Requires: pkgconfig
NA: .so files in -devel
NA: -devel requires base package
NA: No libtool archives
NA: GUI applications need a desktop file
OK: Don't own files/dirs already owned by other packages
OK: Clean at the beginning of %install
OK: All filenames are valid UTF-8

SHOULD items:
NA: Ask upstream to include a license file
NA: Provide translated description and summary fields
OK: Package builds in mock (checked x86_64 F-11 only)
??: Package builds on all supported arches (did not check)
OK: Package functions as described (minimal testing only)
OK: Sane scriptlets
OK: Subpackages require base package
NA: Placement of pkgconfig files
NA: File dependencies

Finally, I have a few comments on the spec file.  First, would you consider
adding ChangeLog and BUGS to %doc?  I know their contents may be trivial, and
the author isn't working on the code right now, but there just may be a new
version some day ....

Second, the -javadoc subpackage does not need to "Requires: jpackage-utils",
since it requires the base package, which requires jpackage-utils.

Third, I don't understand the use of %dir in the "%files javadoc" section.  I
think this is more readable:

%files javadoc
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}

-- 
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.