[Bug 228960] Review Request: java-1.5.0-gcj - JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ

[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-1.5.0-gcj - JPackage compatibility layer for GCJ


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=228960


overholt at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
         AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com         |fitzsim at redhat.com
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-03-07 16:55 EST -------
Initial review (more to come):

Comments:

 . I'd like to see a separate sinjdoc SRPM
 . around line 306 there are some "../../../../.." paths - can this be
   done in a less fragile manner?  If not, can we get a comment that
   specifies why/what we're doing?
 . I'm fine with the commented-out plugin sections but perhaps note why
   we've done this
 . why have the %define gccver 4.1.2 commented out?  is this due to the
   fact that it wasn't buildable until that version hit rawhide?

MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
  . I guess my only concern here would be the use of the word java in
    the name but I guess that's okay?
? license field matches the actual license.
  . it would be nice if there were an actual webpage ... even just a
    simple page listing the license and with links to source drops
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* source and patches verified
  . it would be nice if the j-g-c patches could be rolled upstream; or
    commented if that's not possible
* summary and description okay
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used properly
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
? packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
  E: java-1.5.0-gcj hardcoded-library-path in %{_prefix}/lib
  . justified in spec comments and in review request
* changelog fine
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* License and not Copyright used
* Summary tag does not end in a period
* if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
* summary is a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
  . just the first python macro line and a %files entry or two - fine
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.