[Bug 167525] Review Request: cpptasks

[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=167525


Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Keywords|                            |Reopened
             Status|CLOSED                      |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |loganjerry at gmail.com
             Blocks|201449(FE-DEADREVIEW)       |
         Resolution|NOTABUG                     |
         AssignedTo|gemi at bluewin.ch             |loganjerry at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #8 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com>  2009-08-27 11:36:00 EDT ---
I would have found this sooner if it wasn't marked CLOSED NOTABUG and blocked
FE-DEADREVIEW. :-)

Is there a reason for not building with gcj?  If so, please include an
explanatory comment at the top of the spec file.  If not, please add the aot
compilation bits.

There is ongoing work to migrate to maven 2.0.8.  Does this package need to
wait for that release of maven in order to build the manual?  Although it
appears someone will have to package these first anyway:

http://clirr.sourceforge.net/
http://mojo.codehaus.org/clirr-maven-plugin/

In the absence of a manual, how about putting a URL to the online manual in the
description or in a README.fedora?

Does this package need to drop a file into /etc/ant.d?

MUST items:
OK: rpmlint out

2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

OK: package name
OK: spec filename matches package name
XX: packaging guidelines are met

https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
requires that jpackage-utils also be a Requires, that java-devel be a
BuildRequires, and that java be a Requires.

OK: licensing guidelines
OK: license field matches actual license
OK: license file in %doc
OK: spec file in American English
OK: spec file is legible (but put a blank line between the first 2 %changelog
entries, please)
OK: source matches upstream (checked with md5sum)
OK: package builds successfully on at least one primary arch
NA: appropriate use of ExcludeArch
OK: all build dependencies in BuildRequires
NA: proper handling of locales
NA: ldconfig invocation
OK: no relocatable packages
XX: package owns all directories it creates

This package does not own /usr/share/doc/cpptasks, which is the wrong name
anyway (no version).  Please replace the %doc lines for the base package with
this:

%doc LICENSE NOTICE

OK: no duplicate listings in %files
OK: correct permissions on files
OK: %clean section
OK: consistent use of macros
OK: code or permissible content
OK: large documentation in -doc (more information needed on the manual, though;
see above)
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
OK: no libtool archives
NA: GUI applications need a desktop file
OK: do not 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
OK: package builds in mock (tried x86_64 Fedora 11 only)
??: package builds on all supported arches (did not check)
??: package functions as described (I don't know how to check)
OK: sane scriptlets
XX: subpackages require the base package

The -javadoc subpackage does not require the base package.

NA: placement of pkgconfig files
NA: file dependencies

-- 
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.