[Bug 636250] Review Request: HotEqn - Java Library to display LateX Code - Dependency for Freemind

[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=636250

--- Comment #1 from Orion Poplawski <orion at cora.nwra.com> 2010-09-21 15:05:27 EDT ---
Package Review
==============

Key:
- = N/A
x = Check
! = Problem
? = Not evaluated

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[x]  Rpmlint output:
HotEqn.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US Fontsizes -> Font sizes,
Font-sizes, Fantasizes

[x]  Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines[1].
[x]  Spec file name must match the base package name, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]  Package meets the Packaging Guidelines[2].
[x]  Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms.
[x]  Buildroot is correct
(%{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n))
[x]  Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets other
legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines[3,4].
[!]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: GPLv3

I'm a little leery of the license preamble in the sources:

    HotEqn is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
    it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
    the Free Software Foundation; 
    HotEqn is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
    but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
    MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
    GNU General Public License for more details.
    You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
    along with this program.  If not, see <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/>.

As it doesn't mention explicitly the version of the GPL license.  I've flagged
legal for a comment.

[x]  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 is included in %doc.
[-]  All independent sub-packages have license of their own
[x]  Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]  Sources used to build the package matches the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
MD5SUM this package    :5b31df68bdb7f5dd3c91a3592ec73f9f
MD5SUM upstream package:5b31df68bdb7f5dd3c91a3592ec73f9f
[x]  All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines[5].
[x]  Package must own all directories that it creates.
[x]  Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]  Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]  Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]  Package has a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
$RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
[x]  Package consistently uses macros.
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[-]  Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[-]  Package contains a properly installed %{name}.desktop file if it is a GUI
application.
[x]  Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[-]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage

Note that you could do this by hand.

[-]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-]  Packages using maven have proper BuildRequires/Requires(post) on
jpackage-utils
[-]  Packages using maven run %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[-]  Package uses %global not %define
[-]  If package uses tarball from VCS include comment how to re-create that
tarball (svn export URL, git clone URL, ...)
[x]  If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
removed prior to building
[x]  All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.

=== SUGGESTED ITEMS ===
[x]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[-]  Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[-]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} with
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} symlink
[-]  If package contains pom.xml files install it even when building with ant
[-]  If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
[-]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[x]  Latest version is packaged.
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on:
fedora-rawhide-x86_64, F13 i386

=== Issues ===
1. License issue
2. Spec uses funny tab spacing and some mix of tabs and spaces it seems.  I
also like to see blank lines between main sections (see %prep/%build)
3. Why not move sources in to src/ instead of copying?
4. Perhaps build javadocs?

[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines
[2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines
[3] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines
[4] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:Main
[5] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Exceptions_2

-- 
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.