[Bug 508351] Review Request: josm - java openstreetmap editor

[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=508351

--- Comment #49 from Peter Lemenkov <lemenkov at gmail.com> 2010-06-11 15:55:58 EDT ---
Koji scratchbuild for F-13:

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2245550

One note - I'm suspecting that description and definition of 'manual'
sub-package is a leftover, so it should be removed.

REVIEW:

Legend: + = PASSED, - = FAILED, 0 = Not Applicable

+ rpmlint is almost silent:

Sulaco ~/Desktop: rpmlint josm-*
josm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US metadata -> meta data,
meta-data, metatarsus
josm.noarch: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/josm-0/CONTRIBUTION
josm-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) Javadocs -> Java docs,
Java-docs, Javanese
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.
Sulaco ~/Desktop:

+ The package is named according to the  Package Naming Guidelines.
+ The spec file name matches the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
+/- The package meets the Packaging Guidelines, except issue with sub-package
'manual' mentioned above.
+ The package is licensed with a Fedora approved license and meets the
Licensing Guidelines.
+ The License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
+ The file, containing the text of the license(s) for the package, is included
in %doc.
+ The spec file is written in American English.
+ The spec file for the package is legible.
+ The sources used to build the package, match the upstream source (by checking
the sources, generated from attached script)

Sulaco ~/tmp: diff -ru josm-0 josm-0.from_script/
Sulaco ~/tmp: ls
josm-0  josm-0.from_script
Sulaco ~/tmp:

+ The package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
primary architecture.
+ All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires.
0 No need to handle locales.
0 No shared library files.
+ The package does NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
+ The package is not designed to be relocatable.
+ The package owns all directories that it creates.
+ The package does not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files
listings.
+ Permissions on files are set properly.
+ The package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ The package consistently uses macros.
+ The package contains code, or permissible content.
0 No extremely large documentation files (except javadoc)
+ Anything, the package includes as %doc, does not affect the runtime of the
application.
0 No header files.
0 No static libraries.
0 No pkgconfig(.pc) files.
0 The package doesn't contain library files with a suffix (e.g. libfoo.so.1.1).
0 No devel sub-package.
+ The package does NOT contain any .la libtool archives.
+ The package includes a %{name}.desktop file, and that file is properly
installed with desktop-file-install in the %install section.
+ The package does not own files or directories already owned by other
packages.
+ At the beginning of %install, the package runs rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
+ All filenames in rpm packages are valid UTF-8.

Please, fix/comment issue with 'manual' sub-package, and I'll continue.

-- 
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.