[Bug 199592] New: Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

Summary: Review Request: icu4j
           Product: Fedora Core
           Version: devel
          Platform: All
        OS/Version: Linux
            Status: NEW
          Severity: normal
          Priority: normal
         Component: Package Review
        AssignedTo: [e-mail]
        ReportedBy: [e-mail]
         QAContact: [e-mail]
                CC: [e-mail]

Spec URL:

http://people.redhat.com/bkonrath/eclipse/icu4j.spec

SRPM URL:

http://people.redhat.com/bkonrath/eclipse/icu4j-3.4.4-1jpp_1fc.src.rpm

Description:

The International Component for Unicode for Java (ICU4J) is a library for Unicode support, software internationalization and globalization. Eclipse 3.2 uses this library for its internationalization support.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |NEEDINFO
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]          |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |needinfo?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-20 13:13 EST -------
The versioning doesn't pass current naming guidelines.  We've got an open
discussion on jpp based packages and need input from more RH Java folks about
the goals of the jpp naming so that we can work our guidelines to allow for an
agreed upon scheme.

Differring until this has been completed.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|188265                      |188267
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEEDINFO                    |ASSIGNED
               Flag|needinfo?                   |

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-20 13:20 EST -------
The Eclipse packges in Fedora Core currently include a binary version of these
libraries. The purpose of this package is to remove these binary jars. Given
this, and the fact the Eclipse packages all currently use the jpp naming
convention, I respectfully request review at this time instead of waiting for
the jpp naming issue to be sorted out.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-20 13:44 EST -------
I'm trying very hard to get the naming scheme approved by the freeze.

Is there upstream (jpp) packages of the icr4j stuff, or is this our local split out?

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-20 17:34 EST -------
This is a local split. I had to update the sources from 3.2 to 3.4.4 and add a
patch to work around a bug in the javadoc generation. Other than that the spec
file is the same.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |199504
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-20 17:51 EST -------
As stated in bug #199504, I wasn't able to build eclipse after replacing its
binary jars with icu4j 3.4.4. I did not investigate further.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-20 17:54 EST -------
Don't forget to fix the version in you changelog entry

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-20 19:01 EST -------
(In reply to comment #5)
> As stated in bug #199504, I wasn't able to build eclipse after replacing its
> binary jars with icu4j 3.4.4. I did not investigate further.

Right, I'll make a patch on Monday. I'm at OLS right now.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-20 19:07 EST -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> Don't forget to fix the version in you changelog entry

Fixed, thanks.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |NOTABUG

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-21 00:13 EST -------
I looked into this a little bit and it seems that the icu4j included with
eclipse (icu4j 3.4.4.1) is different enough from this version (icu4j 3.4.4) that
I think it is better to build 3.4.4.1. The only place to get the 3.4.4.1 source
is from the Eclipse source and even though it doesn't have build files, I think
it's best to hack the build of icu4j 3.4.4.1 into the Eclipse spec file.

I consulted Andrew Overholt and he argees with this.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-21 13:39 EST -------
Why not patch the upstream source against the source included with eclipse and
keep the external package?

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-07-24 12:36 EST -------
(In reply to comment #10)
> Why not patch the upstream source against the source included with eclipse and
> keep the external package?

I don't want to patch becuase it seems that 3.4.4.1 is a significant change from
3.4.4.1. They removed a whole bunch of classes and I'm not really sure what
there changes do. I'm going to file a bug upstream and see if I can figure out
what's going on.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|188267                      |
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Resolution|NOTABUG                     |
             Status|CLOSED                      |NEW
           Keywords|                            |Reopened

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-11-30 09:53 EST -------
We're going move the icu4j plugins build out of the eclipse package and put it
in the icu4j package.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-11-30 09:58 EST -------
Jeff, once you add the icu4j plugin build to the icu4j package, you'll need to
get it into Fedora Core. But since the Core/Extras distinction is going away, I
guess you can get it approved in either place. You should do this before FC7Test1.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-12-15 12:02 EST -------
Whats going on here?

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2006-12-15 12:04 EST -------
I believe Jeff Johnston is planning on doing this sometime early in the new year.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-01-23 12:02 EST -------
Created an attachment (id=146318)
 --> (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=146318&action=vie...)
spec file for review

Release tag to be adjusted as per new guidelines

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-01-23 12:04 EST -------
SRPM can be obtained with 'make srpm' in the 'devel' branch of dist CVS.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-01-23 12:29 EST -------
URL: http://people.redhat.com/fnasser/icu4j-3.4.5-2jpp.1.src.rpm

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-10 12:30 EST -------
*** Bug 227060 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]         |[e-mail]

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]           |[e-mail]
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-12 16:18 EST -------
X suggests the subsection needs attention
+ is a positive comment
. is a specific comment about a problem

MUST:
X * package is named appropriately
 - match upstream tarball or project name
   + OK
 - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
consistency
   + OK
 - specfile should be %{name}.spec
   + OK
 - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
   something)
   + OK
 - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
   . 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1 -> 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2%{?dist} to be inline with 
     http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage
 - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
   not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
   + OK
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
   + OSI-approved
   X licence OSI approved
 - not a kernel module
 - not shareware
 - is it covered by patents?
 - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
 - no binary firmware
   + None of these apply

X * license field matches the actual license.
   + The license according
     http://www-306.ibm.com/software/globalization/icu/license.jsp is X License

* license is open source-compatible.
 - use acronyms for licences where common
   + Yes but needs to be confirmed to be the correct license, see above.
* specfile name matches %{name}
  + OK.
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
  + OK. The patches use windows style CRLF, please use sed to fix.
 - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
   how to generate the the source drop; ie. 
  # svn export blah/tag blah
  # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
  + N/A
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
  + OK.

X correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
   . Use the buildroot specified above

X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
locations)
  . Use the new naming convention mentioned above

* license text included in package and marked with %doc
  + OK.

* keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?)
  + N/A

* packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
  + OK
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm and rpm gives no output
W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid.  Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".

W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/icu4j-3.4.5/license.html
This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or
modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed
correctly in some circumstances.

W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/icu4j-3.4.5/APIChangeReport.html
This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or
modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed
correctly in some circumstances.

W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/icu4j-3.4.5/readme.html
This file has wrong end-of-line encoding, usually caused by creation or
modification on a non-Unix system. It could prevent it from being displayed
correctly in some circumstances.

W: icu4j-eclipse non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development
Environments (IDE)
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid.  Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".

W: icu4j-eclipse no-documentation
The package contains no documentation (README, doc, etc).
You have to include documentation files.
 . There should probably be an EPL file in the eclipse subpackage that needs
   to be added
W: icu4j-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid.  Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".

W: icu4j-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm
+ If you get rid of the script driven javadoc handling, you wont have to deal
with this, see below

W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid.  Valid groups are:
"Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving",
"Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases",
"Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering",
"Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia",
"Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System",
"Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers",
"Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System",
"Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System
Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System
Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User
Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support".

W: icu4j mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 55)
The specfile mixes use of spaces and tabs for indentation, which is a
cosmetic annoyance.  Use either spaces or tabs for indentation, not both.

- justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there
 + Groups can be ignored
 . Fix the end line encoding
 . Add EPL documentation to eclipse package

* changelog should be in one of these formats:
  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating  - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating  0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

* Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating 
  - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.
  + OK

* Packager tag should not be used
  + OK

* Vendor/Distribution tag should not be used
  + OK

* use License and not Copyright 
  + OK

* Summary tag should not end in a period
  + OK

* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
  + N/A

* specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
   + OK

* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
   + ?Builds OK locally

* BuildRequires are proper
  + Builds in mock
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
   bash
   bzip2
   coreutils
   cpio
   diffutils
   fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
   gcc
   gcc-c++
   gzip
   make
   patch
   perl
   redhat-rpm-config
   rpm-build
   sed
   tar
   unzip
   which

* summary should be a short and concise description of the package
  + OK

* description expands upon summary (don't include installation
instructions)
  + OK
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
  + Everything except the gc_support incantation seems OK, if possible
reformat

* specfile written in American English
  + OK

* make a -doc sub-package if necessary
  + OK, the javadoc subpackages are equivalent to this

* - see

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160...
* packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
* don't use rpath
* config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
* GUI apps should contain .desktop files
 + None of the above apply

* should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
  + N/A

X use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
 - $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} used interchangably

* don't use %makeinstall
* locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install

X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
  Some cp commands not using -p option, suggest adding them if possible

* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
  + N/A

* package should probably not be relocatable
  + Not relocatable

* package contains code
 - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent
 + OK
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
 + To the best of my knowledge no ofensive content :)

X package should own all directories and files
  . /usr/lib/eclipse should be owned by libswt3-gtk2 in the latest update to it,
add a require for it
  . jpackage-utils is needed for the javadoc and base package since it needs
/usr/share/java{,doc}.
    Please take a look at
https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html and
    modify the javadoc handling appropriately. If you use the above javadoc
handling then you can 
    limit to Requires: jpackage-utils in both javadoc and main packages, o/w you
need Requires(post)
    and Requires on jpackage-utils as well as Requires(post) on rm and ln in
javadoc package and a 
    requires on the main package for jpackage-utils

* there should be no %files duplicates
  + OK

* file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
  + OK

* %clean should be present
  + OK

* %doc files should not affect runtime
  + OK

* if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
  + Not a web app

X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
  + Builds in mock fine
  . Requires need to be fixed, check "package should own all directories and files"

SHOULD:
* package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
  + OK
* package should build on i386
  + Builds in mock
* package should build in mock
  + OK

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]          |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-14 00:55 EST -------
(In reply to comment #20)
> ...
> for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
> . 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1 -> 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2%{?dist} to be inline with 
>   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage

Done
> ...
> X * license field matches the actual license.
> The license according
> http://www-306.ibm.com/software/globalization/icu/license.jsp is X License

Yeah, the X License = X.net License = X11 License = MIT License
Only the MIT license and the X.net License appear in the offical rpmlint
license list. Should this be called what the project calls it "X license"
or should the MIT license be used instead since rpmlint likes it better?
> ...
> X correct buildroot
> should be:
> %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)
> . Use the buildroot specified above

Fixed
> X * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
> locations)
>   . Use the new naming convention mentioned above

Fixed
> ...
> X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm and rpm gives no output
> W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

- group warnings can be ignored
> W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding

- fixed
> W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding

- fixed
> W: icu4j wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding

- fixed
> W: icu4j-eclipse non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development
> Environments (IDE)

- group warnings can be ignored
> W: icu4j-eclipse no-documentation
>  . There should probably be an EPL file in the eclipse subpackage that needs
>    to be added

The plugin should be under the X license since this is the license of the
project. This has now been added
> W: icu4j-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation

- can ignore group warnings
> W: icu4j-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm

- fixed
> W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

- can ignore group warnings
> W: icu4j mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 55)

- fixed
> ...
> X use macros appropriately and consistently
> ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS
> $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot} used interchangably

fixed
> ...
> X consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
>   Some cp commands not using -p option, suggest adding them if possible

fixed
> ...
> X package should own all directories and files
>   . /usr/lib/eclipse should be owned by libswt3-gtk2 in the latest update to it,
> add a require for it
>   . jpackage-utils is needed for the javadoc and base package since it needs
> /usr/share/java{,doc}.
>     Please take a look at
> https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html and
>     modify the javadoc handling appropriately. If you use the above javadoc
> handling then you can 
>     limit to Requires: jpackage-utils in both javadoc and main packages, o/w you
> need Requires(post)
>     and Requires on jpackage-utils as well as Requires(post) on rm and ln in
> javadoc package and a 
>     requires on the main package for jpackage-utils

added requires on jpackage-utils and the libecj3-gtk to proper packages
> ...
> X verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
> Builds in mock fine
>
> . Requires need to be fixed, check "package should own all directories and

files"
> SHOULD:
> package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
> OK
> package should build on i386
> Builds in mock
> package should build in mock
> OK

RPMLINT on new packages:

srpm:
rpmlint icu4j-3.4.5-2jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm
W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

rpms:
E: icu4j explicit-lib-dependency libswt3-gtk2
- I believe this error is only occuring because it has 'lib' in the name.
This package is needed to build the eclipse plugin subpackage.

W: icu4j non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
W: icu4j-eclipse non-standard-group Text Editors/Integrated Development
Environments (IDE)
W: icu4j-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation

The updated packages can be found here:
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/215/icu4j-3.4.5-2jpp.1.fc...
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/216/icu4j-3.4.5-2jpp.1.fc...
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/217/icu4j-debuginfo-3.4.5...
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/218/icu4j-eclipse-3.4.5-2...
https://mwringe.108.redhat.com/files/documents/175/219/icu4j-javadoc-3.4.5-2...

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-14 08:45 EST -------
(In reply to comment #21)
> > X package should own all directories and files
> >   . /usr/lib/eclipse should be owned by libswt3-gtk2 in the latest update to it,
> > add a require for it

No, it should require eclipse-platform.  While SWT does indeed own that
directory, the plugin should probably require eclipse-platform.  Ben, can you
give us your opinion?

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-14 10:07 EST -------
Technically the icu4j OSGi jars shouldn't require any eclipse subpackage. It is
possible that someone would want to use the OSGi jar instead of the regular jar
outside of eclipse. Here's what I think we should do: remove the 'Requires:
libswt3-gtk2' and put the OSGi jar in /usr/share/java/. That will allow it to be
installed independently of eclispe and we can just symlink to it in the eclipse
build. If the OSGi jar can be used in place of the regular jar, I think we
should only include the OSGi jar and add a symlink for the regular jar in
/usr/share/java/.

Also, I noticed a small error with the src.zip creation; '--date=1/1/1970'
should be changed to '--date=1/1/1980' because the zip file format starts at
1980. Really it's my mistake from when I first updated this spec file, sorry.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]           |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-14 10:36 EST -------
(In reply to comment #21)
> (In reply to comment #20)
> > ...
> > for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
> > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease
> > . 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1 -> 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2%{?dist} to be inline with 
> >   http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/ExceptionJPackage

Looks good, 0:3.4.5-2jpp.1.fc7 is rpm newer
> > ...
> > X * license field matches the actual license.
> > The license according
> > http://www-306.ibm.com/software/globalization/icu/license.jsp is X License
>
> Yeah, the X License = X.net License = X11 License = MIT License
> Only the MIT license and the X.net License appear in the offical rpmlint
> license list. Should this be called what the project calls it "X license"
> or should the MIT license be used instead since rpmlint likes it better?

MIT style seems correct to me for this package
> > W: icu4j-eclipse no-documentation
> >  . There should probably be an EPL file in the eclipse subpackage that needs
> >    to be added
>
> The plugin should be under the X license since this is the license of the
> project. This has now been added

OK
> > X package should own all directories and files
> >   . /usr/lib/eclipse should be owned by libswt3-gtk2 in the latest update to it,

Please apply bkonrath's suggestion above
> > add a require for it
> >   . jpackage-utils is needed for the javadoc and base package since it needs
> > /usr/share/java{,doc}.

Also please apply the fix to the src.zip that bkonrath mentioned
Everything else looks good.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]          |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-14 16:26 EST -------
Updated (in same locations as posted before)

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]           |[e-mail]
               Flag|fedora-review-              |fedora-review+

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-02-14 17:11 EST -------
(In reply to comment #25)
> Updated (in same locations as posted before)

The requires has been switched to eclipse-rcp and the eclipse jars are under
%{_datadir}/eclipse/{features/plugins}. I think this is OK.
APPROVED
Assigning to owner to build into rawhide.

Please let me know when the package is built and once verified in Rawhide I will
close the bug.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-12 17:02 EST -------
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: icu4j
Short Description: International Components for Unicode for Java
Owners: [e-mail]
Branches:
InitialCC: [e-mail],[e-mail]

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

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

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|                            |177841
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-16 17:43 EST -------
I can't build this thing...

RPM build errors:
    File not found by glob:
/var/tmp/icu4j-3.4.5-2jpp.1-root-root/usr/lib/gcj/icu4j/com.ibm.icu*

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|[e-mail]          |[e-mail]

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-16 18:27 EST -------
This error is known.  The package has problems with recent eclipse-rcp changes.
 For now, the eclipse plugin subpackage has been disabled.  The latest changes
can be found at:

http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/icu4j.spec
  http://www.vermillionskye.com/downloads/icu4j-3.4.5-2jpp.2.src.rpm

Vivek, please give this a quick look and comment here if there are any issues.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
               Flag|fedora-review+              |fedora-review?

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-19 10:48 EST -------
Changing the review flag.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

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

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-03-19 10:51 EST -------
- Builds on mock (doesnt produce the -eclipse subpackage as expected)
- Seems to pass the criterias for review
Provides of the rpms:
$ rpm -qp --provides icu4j-3.4.5-2jpp.2/icu4j*.i386.rpm
icu4j-3.4.5.jar.so  
icu4j = 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2.fc7
icu4j-3.4.5.jar.so.debug  
icu4j-debuginfo = 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2.fc7
icu4j-javadoc = 0:3.4.5-2jpp.2.fc7

Requires of the rpms:
$ rpm -qp --requires icu4j-3.4.5-2jpp.2/icu4j*.i386.rpm
/bin/sh  
/bin/sh  
java-gcj-compat  
java-gcj-compat  
jpackage-utils  
libc.so.6  
libc.so.6(GLIBC_2.1.3)  
libdl.so.2  
libgcc_s.so.1  
libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)  
libgcc_s.so.1(GLIBC_2.0)  
libgcj_bc.so.1  
libm.so.6  
libm.so.6(GLIBC_2.0)  
libpthread.so.0  
librt.so.1  
libz.so.1  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
rtld(GNU_HASH)  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
jpackage-utils  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1

Everything seems to be in order IMO.

APPROVED.

Please build in plague and comment here, once verified as visible on rawhide the
bug can be closed.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Severity|normal                      |medium
           Priority|normal                      |medium

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-04-27 01:54 EST -------
Can this bug be closed?

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|ASSIGNED                    |CLOSED
         Resolution|                            |CURRENTRELEASE
   Fixed In Version|                            |3.4.5-2jpp.2.fc7

------- Additional Comments From [e-mail]  2007-06-07 02:58 EST -------
Closing bug since icu4j has been imported into cvs already.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: icu4j

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=199592

[e-mail] changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|177841                      |
              nThis|                            |

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=199592

Deepak Bhole  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]
               Flag|fedora-cvs+                 |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #34 from Deepak Bhole  2011-12-05 14:24:38 EST ---
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: icu4j
New Branches: el6
Owners: Jochen Schmitt 
InitialCC:

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=199592

--- Comment #35 from Jon Ciesla  2011-12-05 14:34:27 EST ---
Use FAS account, not name and email.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=199592

--- Comment #36 from Deepak Bhole  2011-12-05 14:40:14 EST ---
Oops, sorry. I copied and pasted from comment 27 and used same format

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=199592

Deepak Bhole  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #37 from Deepak Bhole  2011-12-05 14:40:48 EST ---
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: icu4j
New Branches: el6
Owners: S4504kr
InitialCC:

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=199592

--- Comment #38 from Jon Ciesla  2011-12-05 14:45:27 EST ---
Still not working.  Might it be case-sensitive?

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=199592

Deepak Bhole  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|                            |fedora-cvs?

--- Comment #39 from Deepak Bhole  2011-12-05 14:54:20 EST ---
Ah sorry, his Fedora Wiki name has a different case. Last try, hopefully:

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: icu4j
New Branches: el6
Owners: s4504kr
InitialCC:

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=199592

--- Comment #40 from Jon Ciesla  2011-12-05 14:55:21 EST ---
Git done (by process-git-requests).

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=199592

Fernando Nasser  changed:

What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CC|                            |[e-mail]

--- Comment #41 from Fernando Nasser  2011-12-05 15:43:09 EST ---
Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: icu4j
New Branches: el6
Owners: fnasser

Jochen Schmitt wants to build pdftk for EPEL-6 and that has icu4j as a
dependency.

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=199592

Fernando Nasser  changed:

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

[Bug 199592] Review Request: icu4j

[Red Hat Bugzilla]

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=199592

--- Comment #42 from Jon Ciesla  2011-12-05 15:49:26 EST ---
Branch already exists, user should request access in pkgdb.