[Bug 507916] Review Request: javanotes - Introduction to Programming Using Java, By David J. Eck

[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=507916


Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |tibbs at math.uh.edu
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #5 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs at math.uh.edu>  2009-06-28 19:12:19 EDT ---
There's not much to this package.  You're right that the dist tag isn't
necessary, but do keep in mind that not having it will not reduce download time
as each release is signed with a different key (and hence the packages are
different anyway), and you will be responsible for making sure that the release
you push to F11 has a different version than what you push to F10 (and from
what you push to devel).  But that's up to you; the dist tag only makes this
convenient.  Just don't be surprised when you get "tag already exists" errors.

Packaging-wise there's not much to talk about; the package just unpacks a
tarball and drops it under /usr/share/doc.  One issue that bothers me, though,
is that the directory isn't versioned, unlike essentially every other directory
in /usr/share/doc.  The package I'd compare this against, diveintopython,
versions its directory.  Did you consider doing that?

* source files match upstream.  sha256sum:                         
   74f5c1a2525ea735f2f460dd36f416b6728ad7cdf4ef2d4a42a2d0e6686c5d43  
   javanotes5.tar.bz2
* package meets naming and versioning guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* summary is OK.                                                              
* description is OK.                                                          
* build root is OK.                                                           
* license field matches the actual license.                                   
* license is open source-compatible.                                          
* license text not included upstream.                                         
* latest version is being packaged.                                           
* BuildRequires are proper (none).
* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* rpmlint is silent.
* final provides and requires are sane:
   javanotes = 5.1-1
  =
   (none)
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files.
* acceptable content.

The package review process needs reviewers!  If you haven't done any package
reviews recently, please consider doing one.

-- 
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.