[Bug 475603] Review Request: jFormatString - Java format string compile-time checker

[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=475603


Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?(tcallawa at redhat.c |
                   |om)                         |




--- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com>  2009-03-05 11:19:07 EDT ---
Thanks, Andrew.  Here are my responses to the flagged items.  First the rpmlint
complaints from comment #1.

> jFormatString.src:104: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}

This is a side effect of the standard spec file template for using gcj.  I
can't do anything about it (and there is actually nothing wrong).

> jFormatString.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java

Dozens of Fedora packages already use this group (it is derived from
jpackage.org) and the Group name doesn't matter anyway.  I don't see any reason
to change it.  This goes for the rpmlint complaints about the binary rpm, too.

> jFormatString.src: W: non-coherent-filename
> jFormatString-0-0.1.20081016svn.src.rpm
> jFormatString-0-0.1.20081016svn.fc10.src.rpm

That's just me being dumb in the way I copied the file to my web site.  If you
build it yourself, this won't happen.

> jFormatString.src: W: strange-permission jFormatString-0.tar.bz2 0745

That is a strange permission.  It looks like the file must have passed through
a Windows machine on its way to my web site.  Fixed.

> X make sure lines are <= 80 characters
>   - please add a line continuation to fix this on line 69

Fixed.

> * md5sum matches upstream
>   - the tarball I generated does not match but diff -uNr shows no differences
> so I assume svn timestamp differences

When you do an svn checkout, it goes into a freshly created directory.  Tar
then faithfully preserves the timestamp on that directory.  For that reason,
tarballs created from upstream SCM snapshots will never have matching
checksums.  I hadn't thought about checking with diff.  That one goes into my
bag of reviewer tricks.  Thanks!

> X license text included in package and marked with %doc
>   - this isn't the case.  Perhaps since you're doing an SVN snapshot you can
> include a coyp of it?

Oops, that was an oversight on my part.  But that's why we do package reviews,
right?  Fixed.

So I guess we're just waiting for the license question to be resolved.  Here
are the new versions:

http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jFormatString/jFormatString.spec
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jFormatString/jFormatString-0-0.2.20081016svn.fc10.src.rpm

-- 
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.