[Bug 227040] Review Request: batik-1.6-2jpp - Scalable Vector Graphics for Java

[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: batik-1.6-2jpp - Scalable Vector Graphics for Java


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=227040





------- Additional Comments From fitzsim at redhat.com  2007-11-22 18:28 EST -------
- rpmlint:

$ rpmlint batik-1.7-1.src.rpm

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-1.7-1.noarch.rpm
batik.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics

Fix.

batik.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License

Fix.

batik.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided batik-monolithic

OK.

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-demo-1.7-1.noarch.rpm
batik-demo.noarch: W: no-documentation

OK.

batik-demo.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/batik/test-resources/org/apache/batik/apps/rasterizer/readOnly.png

Check if this is valid.  If the file is not needed it can be removed.

batik-demo.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/batik/contrib/rasterizertask/build.sh 0644

Fix.  Users should be able to run this script to run the demos.

batik-demo.noarch: E: non-executable-script
/usr/share/batik/contrib/charts/convert.sh 0644

Fix.

batik-demo.noarch: E: zero-length
/usr/share/batik/resources/org/apache/batik/ext/awt/image/codec/properties

Fix.

batik-demo.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation

Fix.

batik-demo.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License

Fix.

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-javadoc-1.7-1.noarch.rpm
batik-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
batik-javadoc.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License
batik-javadoc.noarch: W: dangerous-command-in-%post rm

Fix all of these.

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-rasterizer-1.7-1.noarch.rpm
batik-rasterizer.noarch: W: no-documentation

OK.

batik-rasterizer.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics
batik-rasterizer.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License
batik-rasterizer.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest
/usr/share/java/batik-rasterizer.jar

Fix all of these.

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-slideshow-1.7-1.noarch.rpm
batik-slideshow.noarch: W: no-documentation

OK.

batik-slideshow.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics
batik-slideshow.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License
batik-slideshow.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest
/usr/share/java/batik-slideshow.jar
$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-squiggle-1.7-1.noarch.rpm
batik-squiggle.noarch: W: no-documentation

OK.

batik-squiggle.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics

Fix.

batik-squiggle.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License

Fix.

batik-squiggle.noarch: W: obsolete-not-provided batik-svgbrowser

OK.

batik-squiggle.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/batik-squiggle.jar

Fix.

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-svgpp-1.7-1.noarch.rpm
batik-svgpp.noarch: W: no-documentation

OK.

batik-svgpp.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics
batik-svgpp.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License
batik-svgpp.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/batik-svgpp.jar

Fix all of these.

$ rpmlint RPMS/noarch/batik-ttf2svg-1.7-1.noarch.rpm
batik-ttf2svg.noarch: W: no-documentation

OK.

batik-ttf2svg.noarch: W: non-standard-group Multimedia/Graphics
batik-ttf2svg.noarch: W: invalid-license Apache Software License
batik-ttf2svg.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/batik-ttf2svg.jar

Fix all of these.

- package name fine

- spec file name matches package name

- package meets packaging guidelines

The BuildRoot line is non-standard.

The base package description is too long.

See above rpmlint errors.

- package meets licensing guidelines

Remove the Epoch line and all references to %{epoch}.

- license field matches actual license

- license marked %doc

- spec file uses American English

- spec file legible

%define section free

Remove the top two lines.

(cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} && for jar in *-%{version}*; do ln -sf ${jar}
`echo $jar| sed "s|-%{version}||g"`; done)

This should be done as a pushd/popd block.  In general, spec file lines should
wrap at the 80th column.  Likewise, this line should be wrapped:

cp -pr %{name}-%{version}/docs/javadoc/*
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}

- source and upstream md5sum match

The spec file source zip's (batik-src-1.7.zip) md5sum matches
batik-src-1.7beta1.zip's md5sum.  Renaming tarballs causes confusion.  Instead,
keep the tarball name, and change the release string to:

0.1beta1

Also, make sure that the Source0 URL actually exists.

- package builds successfully on i386

- all build requirements listed

- no locales

- no shared libraries for ldconfig

- not relocatable

- directories:
  - owns %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} and %{_datadir}/batik, which
    it creates
  - requires jpackage-utils for %{_javadir} into which it installs jar files

- no duplicate files

- permissions

Replace 0644 and 0755 in the %defattr lines with - to use the default values.

- %clean section fine

- consistent use of macros

- contains code

- doc subpackage

- docs don't affect runtime

- no header files

- no static libraries

- no pkgconfig files

- no library files

- no devel package

- no .la files

- no desktop files

- doesn't own other packages' directories

- removes buildroot at start of %install

- filenames valid UTF-8

- license text included

- no description/summary translations available

- builds in mock on i386

- other architectures not tested but this is a noarch package

- squiggle works fine

- no scriptlets

- all subpackages require current version of base package

- no pkgconfig files

- packages required, rather than individual files

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