[Bug 464013] Review Request: findbugs-bcel - Byte Code Engineering Library with findbugs extensions

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=464013


Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |pcheung at redhat.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mefoster at gmail.com




--- Comment #4 from Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster at gmail.com>  2008-12-15 05:14:22 EDT ---
I asked on fedora-packaging about this package, and got the (grudging) response
that it would be okay, *if* the bcel maintainer is also okay with it:
   
https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2008-December/msg00027.html
The bcel maintainer seems to be Permaine Cheung <pcheung at redhat.com> -- I've
added him to the CC.


That aside, here's my review:
* source files match upstream.  
  3b3d451664855b0c9aae15dd05b69bf1063d8a1d  bcel-5.2-src.tar.gz
  patch is modified, but the differences are documented (but see below)

* package meets versioning guidelines.

X specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
  I'm not sure about this -- should it be findbugs-bcel or bcel-findbugs?

* summary is OK.
X description
  Should probably mention the findbugs aspect in the description somewhere

* dist tag is present.
* build root is OK.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license is included as %doc
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper
X compiler flags are appropriate.
  If you're using javac directly, maybe you should use the %{_javac} macro
  Similarly, you can use %{_jar} instead of jar

* %clean is present.
* package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64).
* package installs properly.
* debuginfo package looks good
* rpmlint is silent (except for Group tags which are apparently okay)
* final provides and requires are sane
* no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* no generically named files
* code, not content.
* javadoc package looks right
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no static libraries.
* no libtool .la files.

Regarding the modified patch -- the original version from findbugs seems to
also create a file
    src/java/org/apache/bcel/classfile/AbstractLocalVariableTable.java
but the modified patch in the SRPM doesn't. Is there a reason for that?

-- 
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.