[Bug 231732] Review Request: sinjdoc - Documentation generator for Java source code

[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: sinjdoc - Documentation generator for Java source code


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=231732


overholt at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com         |fitzsim at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-03-12 16:00 EST -------
My only comment:  should we Obsolete/Provide gjdoc?

The only thing that needs fixing is the changelog entry.

MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
 - yes
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used properly
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on sinjdoc-0.5-1.src.rpm gives no output
X changelog is fine
  - you have an extra space before the 8 ... perhaps just zero-pad it?
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* use License and not Copyright 
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* no PreReq
* 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
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package if necessary
* no static libs
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel necessary
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* %makeinstall not used
* no locale data
* no cp
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web app
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs

  $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/i386/sinjdoc-0.5-1.i386.rpm 
  sinjdoc.jar.so  
  sinjdoc = 0.5-1

* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs

  $ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/sinjdoc-0.5-1.i386.rpm 
  W: sinjdoc unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/gcj/sinjdoc/sinjdoc.jar.so

SHOULD:
* package includes license text in the package and marks it with %doc
* package builds on i386
* package builds in mock
  . didn't try, but Tom says it did for him

-- 
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.