[Bug 475603] Review Request: jFormatString - Java format string compile-time checker
bugzilla at redhat.com
bugzilla at redhat.com
Thu Mar 5 16:19:08 UTC 2009
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=475603
Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Flag|needinfo?(tcallawa at redhat.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> 2009-03-05 11:19:07 EDT ---
Thanks, Andrew. Here are my responses to the flagged items. First the rpmlint
complaints from comment #1.
> jFormatString.src:104: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
This is a side effect of the standard spec file template for using gcj. I
can't do anything about it (and there is actually nothing wrong).
> jFormatString.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
Dozens of Fedora packages already use this group (it is derived from
jpackage.org) and the Group name doesn't matter anyway. I don't see any reason
to change it. This goes for the rpmlint complaints about the binary rpm, too.
> jFormatString.src: W: non-coherent-filename
> jFormatString-0-0.1.20081016svn.src.rpm
> jFormatString-0-0.1.20081016svn.fc10.src.rpm
That's just me being dumb in the way I copied the file to my web site. If you
build it yourself, this won't happen.
> jFormatString.src: W: strange-permission jFormatString-0.tar.bz2 0745
That is a strange permission. It looks like the file must have passed through
a Windows machine on its way to my web site. Fixed.
> X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
> - please add a line continuation to fix this on line 69
Fixed.
> * md5sum matches upstream
> - the tarball I generated does not match but diff -uNr shows no differences
> so I assume svn timestamp differences
When you do an svn checkout, it goes into a freshly created directory. Tar
then faithfully preserves the timestamp on that directory. For that reason,
tarballs created from upstream SCM snapshots will never have matching
checksums. I hadn't thought about checking with diff. That one goes into my
bag of reviewer tricks. Thanks!
> X license text included in package and marked with %doc
> - this isn't the case. Perhaps since you're doing an SVN snapshot you can
> include a coyp of it?
Oops, that was an oversight on my part. But that's why we do package reviews,
right? Fixed.
So I guess we're just waiting for the license question to be resolved. Here
are the new versions:
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jFormatString/jFormatString.spec
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jFormatString/jFormatString-0-0.2.20081016svn.fc10.src.rpm
--
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.
More information about the Fedora-package-review
mailing list