[Bug 723125] Review Request: jutils - Common utilities for the Java Gaming Interface

[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=723125

Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #2 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> 2011-07-22 13:49:52 EDT ---
I have two minor comments.  First, I think you should include the revision
number in the subversion checkout comment, so that if upstream ever commits to
the repository again, the comment will still lead to getting the same sources
as used to build this package; i.e., make the comment read like this:

# svn export -r 30 https://svn.java.net/svn/jutils~svn/trunk jutils

Second, I question the usefulness of having /usr/share/javadoc/jutils contain a
directory named "apidocs".  Wouldn't it be better to move the contents of
apidocs up one level?  That is, I'm suggesting this way of installing the
javadocs:

# javadoc
mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name}
cp -a target/site/apidocs  $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name}

Legend:
+: OK
-: must be fixed
=: should be fixed (at your discretion)
N: not applicable

MUST:
[+] rpmlint output:
$ rpmlint jutils.spec jutils jutils-javadoc
jutils.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: jutils-1.0.1.tar.xz
jutils.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US utils -> tills
jutils-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs,
Java-docs, Avocados
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

Those are all harmless.  Stupid spell checker. :-)
[+] follows package naming guidelines
[+] package meets the packaging guidelines
[+] package uses a Fedora approved license
[+] license field matches the actual license
[N] license file is included in %doc
[+] spec file is in American English
[+] spec file is legible
[+] sources match upstream: I did my own checkout to compare.
[+] package builds on at least one primary arch (tried x86_64)
[N] appropriate use of ExcludeArch
[+] all build requirements in BuildRequires
[N] spec file handles locales properly
[N] ldconfig in %post and %postun
[+] no bundled copies of system libraries
[N] no relocatable packages
[+] package owns all directories that it creates
[+] no files listed twice in %files
[+] proper permissions on files
[+] consistent use of macros
[+] code or permissible content
[N] large documentation in -doc
[+] no runtime dependencies in %doc
[N] header files in -devel
[N] static libraries in -static
[N] .so in -devel
[N] -devel requires main package
[+] package contains no libtool archives
[N] package contains a desktop file, uses desktop-file-install
[+] package does not own files/dirs owned by other packages
[+] all filenames in UTF-8

SHOULD:
[=] query upstream for license text; good luck with that!  I don't really see
the need to do this, since upstream provided a link to the license text.
[N] description and summary contains available translations
[+] package builds in mock: tried fedora-rawhide-i386
[+] package builds on all supported arches: tried i386 and x86_64
[+] package functions as described: minimal testing only
[+] sane scriptlets
[+] subpackages require the main package
[N] placement of pkgconfig files
[N] file dependencies versus package dependencies
[N] package contains man pages for binaries/scripts

Since this package meets all of the MUST items, it is approved.  I encourage
you to consider the two points raised at the top before committing this package
to git, though.

-- 
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.