[Bug 254008] Review Request: objectweb-asm - Version 3.0 of the ObjectWeb ASM

[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: objectweb-asm - Version 3.0 of the ObjectWeb ASM


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=254008





------- Additional Comments From loganjerry at gmail.com  2007-11-30 15:56 EST -------
This package fails 3 MUST items.  They are as follows:

[1] LICENSE.txt must be included as a documentation file.
[2] README.txt and LICENSE.txt both must have their end-of-line encodings fixed.
[3] The package xml-commons-apis (or maybe just jaxp) is both a BuildRequires
and a Requires, due to its use in the org.objectweb.asm.xml package.

Here is the rpmlint output for this package:

[jamesjer at localhost ~]$ rpmlint objectweb-asm
objectweb-asm.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding
/usr/share/doc/objectweb-asm-3.1/README.txt
objectweb-asm.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
objectweb-asm.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest
/usr/share/java/objectweb-asm/asm-xml-3.1.jar
[jamesjer at localhost ~]$ rpmlint objectweb-asm-javadoc
objectweb-asm-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation

MUST items:

- rpmlint output: FAIL, see #2 above
- package naming: OK
- spec file name: OK
- packaging guidelines: OK
- licensing guidelines: OK
- license matches: OK
- package contains license file: FAIL, see #1 above
- spec file in American English: OK
- spec file legible: OK
- sources match upstream: OK
- package compiles and builds into binary RPMs: OK
- appropriate ExcludeArch tags: OK
- all build requirements listed: FAIL, see #3 above
- locales: OK
- correct use of ldconfig: OK
- relocatable package: OK
- package owns directories: OK
- no duplicate files in %files: OK
- file permissions: OK
- spec file has %clean section: OK
- use of macros: OK
- package contains code or permissible content: OK
- large documentation files in a separate package: OK
- files in %doc do no affect runtime: OK
- header files in a -devel package: OK
- static libraries in a -static package: OK
- proper handling of pkgconfig files: OK
- handling of .so and .so.version files: OK
- -devel packages require the base package: OK
- no libtool archives: OK
- desktop file for GUI applications: OK
- package does not own files or directories owned by others: OK
- the buildroot is cleaned at the top of %install: OK
- all filenames are UTF-8: OK

SHOULD items:

- query upstream for a missing license file: OK
- description and summary translations, if available: OK
- package builds in mock: FAIL, see #3 above
- package builds on all supported architectures: unable to test
- package functions as described: OK
- sane scriptlets: OK
- subpackages require the base package with a full version: NO

The javadoc subpackage does not do this, but this appears to be common practice.

- placement of pkgconfig files: OK
- require packages instead of files: OK

Also, I note that the find command in the %prep section appears to be
unnecessary.  The upstream distribution contains no jar files.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/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.