Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: jarbundler - Mac OS X JarBundler ANT Task
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=462530
Summary: Review Request: jarbundler - Mac OS X JarBundler ANT Task Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: guthrie@counterexample.org QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/f9/jarbundler.spec SRPM URL: http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/f9/jarbundler-2.0.0-2.fc9.src.rpm Description: How many times has this happened to you? You've written a little Java utility, or maybe even a more complex application, and you want to create Mac OS X application bundle for easy distribution.
You'd like to be able to do it automatically from your build process, but you're forced to go run the Apple Jar Bundler and tweak all the settings manually every time you build.
Well no more! JarBundler is a feature-rich Ant task which will create a Mac OS X application bundle from a list of Jar files and a main class name. You can add an Icon resource, set various Mac OS X native look-and-feel bells and whistles, and maintain your application bundles as part of your normal build and release cycle. It is free software licensed under the Apache License.
This release is based on the earlier work of Seth Morabito.
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=462530
--- Comment #1 from John Guthrie guthrie@counterexample.org 2008-09-16 17:47:53 EDT --- Just a note: despite the summary, this package is a dependency for the freemind-0.9.0 beta.
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=462530
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2009-08-18 15:57:48 EDT --- The output of rpmlint reveals a few things that should be addressed. Don't worry about the nonstandard groups, or the gcj-mandated use of %{_libdir}, but everything else should be fixed.
jarbundler.x86_64: W: name-repeated-in-summary JarBundler jarbundler.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Java jarbundler.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/jarbundler-2.0.0/example/build.xml jarbundler-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation jarbundler.spec:9: W: non-standard-group Development/Java jarbundler.spec:47: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation jarbundler.spec:103: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} jarbundler.spec: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 3, tab: line 12) 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 8 warnings.
MUST items: X : rpmlint output: see above OK: package name OK: spec file name OK: packaging guidelines OK: licensing guidelines OK: license field matches license OK: license file in %doc OK: spec file in American English OK: spec file is legible X : source matches upstream. It appears that upstream has gone on to version 2.1.0, and uses unversioned tar balls. OK: successful build on at least one primary architecture NA: use of ExcludeArch OK: all build dependencies in BuildRequires NA: proper locale handling NA: ldconfig in %post and %postun NA: relocatable package OK: own all created directories OK: no duplication in %files OK: good permissions on files and dirs OK: %clean section OK: consistent use of macros OK: code or permissible content NA: large documentation files in -doc subpackage OK: nothing in %doc needed at runtime NA: header files in -devel NA: static libraries in -static NA: Requires pkgconfig NA: .so files in -devel NA: -devel subpackage requires main package NA: no libtool archives NA: GUI applications have a desktop file OK: don't 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 fields OK: package builds in mock (tried Fedora 11 x86_64 only) ??: package builds on all supported arches (did not check) OK: package functions as described OK: sane scriptlets OK: subpackages require the main package NA: placement of pkgconfig files NA: file dependencies
In addition, please consider making the javadoc subpackage be noarch. So all that needs to be done for this to pass review is to cleanup the rpmlint warnings and get a good match with an upstream tarball (probably by upgrading your spec file to 2.1.0).
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=462530
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(guthrie@counterex | |ample.org)
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2009-09-21 10:58:06 EDT --- John, if you still want to submit this package to Fedora, please respond within the next week.
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=462530
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Blocks| |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW) Resolution| |NOTABUG Flag|fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(guthrie@counterex | |ample.org) |
--- Comment #4 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2009-10-06 23:08:20 EDT --- Due to no response from the submitter, I am closing this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla