[Bug 561456] Review Request: jnr-x86asm - Pure-java port of asmjit

[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=561456

--- Comment #4 from Mohammed Morsi <mmorsi at redhat.com> 2010-05-24 17:41:05 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #2)
> NOTOK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
> review.
> NOTOK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming 
> NOTOK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
> provided in the spec URL.
> 
> Output:
> jnr-x86asm.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asmjit -> Asmara, Asquith,
> fajitas
> jnr-x86asm.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asmjit -> Asmara,
> Asquith, fajitas
> jnr-x86asm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: jnr-x86asm-0.1.tgz
> jnr-x86asm.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asmjit -> Asmara, Asquith,
> fajitas
> jnr-x86asm.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asmjit -> Asmara,
> Asquith, fajitas
> jnr-x86asm-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) asm -> as, am, mas
> jnr-x86asm-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US asm -> as,
> am, mas
> 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 7 warnings.

I'm ignoring all the spelling errors as it's complaining about 'asmjit' which
is a legit part of the package summary / description. (Also I'm not seeing
those warnings locally, running rpmlint against the SRPM doesn't yield those
spelling errors)


> 
> While spec file explains how to create Source0 it fails to provide
> reliable way to verify no changes happened between Source0 was taken
> and building of RPM. You need to specify git hash (part of it at
> least) of commit that should be checked out after cloning. Once some
> version is released by developer, it would be ideal if git tag hash was
> used instead.
> 

FIXED. It seems the upstream author released a project tarball not long after I
uploaded this package, so now I'm just using that.


> This also applies to naming of package. This is most certainly a
> pre-relase so naming convetions are these:
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages
> 

This is not a pre-release. This is the 0.1 release. According to that wiki link
a prerelease would be something like 0.2alpha or what not.



> 
> OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
> %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.  .
> OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
> OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
> Licensing Guidelines .
> NOTOK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual
> license. 
> 
> License of package is obviously LGPLv3 not MIT

FIXED.

> 
> OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
> its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
> package must be included in %doc.
> 
> License is included,  but it would be good to include COPYING* files
> too especially since COPYING file has the text of license itself.

DONE


> 
> OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
> OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
> OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
> least one primary architecture. 
> OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
> are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
> those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
> OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
> directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
> directory. 
> OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
> %files listings. 
> OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
> executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
> %defattr(...) line. 
> NOTOK: Each package must consistently use macros.
> you mix $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and %{buildroot}. Pick one and stick to it
> 

FIXED

> OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
> OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
> large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
> size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). 
> OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages.
> The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own the
> files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for
> example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the
> files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that
> you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns,
> then please present that at package review time. 
> OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. 
> 
> 
> Please fix those naming/Source0 URL/license/macro problems, so that I can
> approve this package.    

All are fixed save the 'naming' issue, which I'm not sure as to what you are
referring to. I also included the jpackage-utils dependency for the javadoc.

New SPEC / SRPM:
Spec URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/jruby/jnr-x86asm.spec
SRPM URL: http://mo.morsi.org/files/jruby/jnr-x86asm-0.1-2.fc11.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.