[Bug 253691] Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments

[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 report.

Summary: Review Request: java-1.7.0-icedtea - IcedTea runtime and development environments


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=253691





------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-08-24 16:12 EST -------
MUST items:

? package is named appropriately
 - falls in line with JPackage JVM naming
 - what's going to happen with the release tag when we hit 1.3?  Will it just
   be 1.3%{?dist}?  Or will we always have the leading
0.NN.%{openjdkver}.%{icedtearelease}?
OK it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
 - assuming the assumptions about the three things listed in comment #14 are
   okay
OK license field matches the actual license.
OK license is open source-compatible.
OK specfile name matches %{name}
NEEDS_FIXING verify source and patches 
 - there's a "1.19" missing in the java-access-bridge URL
 - if I get the actual java-access-bridge tarball, all of the source files check out
OK summary and description fine
OK acceptable buildroot
OK %{?dist} used correctly
OK license text included in package and marked with %doc
OK packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
 - except for the /usr/lib on x86_64 stuff which I'm okay with, I think we're
   good
OK changelog fine
OK Packager tag not used
OK Vendor tag not used
OK Distribution tag not 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)
OK specfile is legible
? package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
 - I don't have enough disk space on my laptop.  I'm trying a build on another
   box and will report back when it's done.
OK BuildRequires are proper
 - I know Tom's done mock builds so I'm going to assume they're okay
OK summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK description expands upon summary
OK make sure lines are <= 80 characters
 - except for changelog lines, I think we're okay
OK specfile written in American English
OK make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - the package layout is JPackage-standard and we have -javadoc for API docs
? packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
 - I guess I'll have to wait until my build finishes
? are the rpath issues all sorted out in the comments above?
OK config files marked with %config(noreplace)
OK not a GUI app so no .desktop
OK macros used appropriately and consistently
OK don't use %makeinstall
OK install section must begin with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT or %{buildroot}
OK locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - no locale data
NEEDS_FIXING consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
 - can we add -p to the accessibility bridge copying?
OK split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK package should probably not be relocatable
OK package contains code
OK package should own all directories and files
OK 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 rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output

E: java-1.7.0-icedtea hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
 - I'm okay with this as alternatives for x86_64 and 32-bit JVMs is very
   important ... it's also consistent with JPackage standards
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea configure-without-libdir-spec
E: java-1.7.0-icedtea configure-without-libdir-spec
 - I see Tom's comment in comment #1 about this and I'm okay with it.  Does
   anyone disagree?

? verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
 - awaiting results
? run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
 - awaiting results

SHOULD items:

OK package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
? package should build on i386
 - awaiting results
? package should build in mock
 - awaiting results

Remaining issues:
- rmi cgi script - are we keeping it?

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug, or are watching someone who is.