[Bug 529084] Review Request: javatar - Java tar archive io package

[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=529084


Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
                 CC|                            |loganjerry at gmail.com
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |loganjerry at gmail.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #1 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com>  2009-10-26 15:53:07 EDT ---
In the build log, I see this:

deploy:
      [jar] Building jar:
/builddir/build/BUILD/javatar-2.5/tar-2.5/jars/tar.jar
      [jar] Manifest warning: "Name" attributes should not occur in the main
section and must be the first element in all other sections: "Name: "Java Tar""

Is this caused by the sed invocation on the manifest file?  If so, is that
invocation correct?  Also, the source archive contains .class files in
classes/com/ice/tar.  Would you mind deleting those in %prep, just to be sure
they don't affect compilation?

The javadoc documentation is neither rebuilt nor packaged.  Would you consider
invoking "ant javadoc", and putting the contents of doc/api into a -javadoc
subpackage?

Here is the output of rpmlint:

javatar.src:97: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
javatar-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
../SPECS/javatar.spec:97: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.

The warnings are just part of life with GCJ and can be ignored.  The error is a
problem.  Why are there no sources in the debuginfo package?

MUST items:
XX: rpmlint output (see above)
OK: naming guidelines
OK: spec file name matches base package name
OK: packaging guidelines
OK: licensing guidelines
OK: license field matches actual license
OK: license file included in %doc
OK: spec file in American English
OK: spec file is legible
OK: sources match upstream (md5sum of both is 7dae3b92b70c30cfb6fd9699a79f821c)
OK: successfully compiles on at least one arch (x86_64)
NA: proper use of ExcludeArch
OK: all build dependencies in BuildRequires
NA: proper locale handling
NA: ldconfig invocation
OK: no copies of system libraries
NA: relocatable package
OK: package owns all directories it creates
OK: no duplicate listings in %files
OK: proper permissions on files
OK: %clean section
OK: consistent use of macros
OK: code or permissible content
NA: large documentation in -doc
OK: no runtime dependencies in %doc
NA: header files in -devel
NA: static libraries in -static
NA: Requires: pkgconfig
NA: .so files in -devel
NA: -devel requires main package
NA: no libtool archives
NA: desktop file for GUI applications
OK: do not own files/dirs owned by other packages
OK: clean at top of %install
OK: all filenames are valid UTF-8

SHOULD items:
NA: query upstream for a file containing the license
NA: description and summary contain available translations
OK: package builds in mock (only tested Fedora 11 x86_64)
??: package builds on all supported arches (not able to test)
OK: package functions as described (light testing only)
OK: sane scriptlets
NA: subpackages require main package
NA: placement of pkgconfig files
NA: file dependencies

-- 
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.