[Bug 665544] Review Request: ini4j - Java API for handling files in Window .ini format

Wed Jan 12 13:22:09 UTC 2011

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=665544

--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2011-01-12 08:22:08 EST ---
Package Review
==============

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

=== REQUIRED ITEMS ===
[!]  Rpmlint output:
ini4j.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ini -> uni, in, ii
ini4j.noarch: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii
ini4j.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/ini4j
ini4j.src: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) ini -> uni, in, ii
ini4j.src: W: spelling-error %description -l en_US ini -> uni, in, ii
no problem

ini4j-javadoc.noarch: W: spelling-error Summary(en_US) doccumentation ->
documentation, instrumentation, argumentation
"cc"->"c"
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 6 warnings.
[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 definition is not present
[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].
[x]  License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
License type: ASL 2.0
[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 : 73f7c4a5f010d5b968425b8415132eb1
[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 does NOT have a %clean section which contains rm -rf %{buildroot}
(or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT). (not needed anymore)
[x]  Package consistently uses macros (no %{buildroot} and $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
mixing)
[x]  Package contains code, or permissable content.
[x]  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.
[x]  Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]  Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlinks)
[x]  Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Although javadoc subpackage has Requires both on main package and
jpackage-utils. If you don't have strong reason to depend on main package it
might be good idea to drop that dependency. If you decide to keep main package
Requires then jpackage-utils is not necessary since main package already
requires it.

[x]  Javadoc subpackages have Require: jpackage-utils
[-]  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, ...)
[-]  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.
[!]  Jar files are installed to %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar (see [6] for details)
Please no -%{version}.jar files. Current guidelines have versionless jars.
[x]  If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even when
building with ant
[x]  pom files has correct add_to_maven_depmap call which resolves to the pom
file (use "JPP." and "JPP-" correctly)

=== Maven ===
[x]  Use %{_mavenpomdir} macro for placing pom files instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
[!]  If package uses "-Dmaven.test.skip=true" explain why it was needed in a
comment
If it's possible prefer to use -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore=true instead of
test.skip. This is useful if tests compile but fail to run correctly. We can
still see the output in the build.log. In both cases please explain why
test.skip was used so that it can be removed in the future when the reason is
gone.

[!]  If package uses custom depmap "-Dmaven2.jpp.depmap.file=*" explain why
it's needed in a comment
Removing activation is OK, but please file a bug for plexus-mail-sender to
provide correct depmap. I'll work on fixing it in the meantime :-)

[x]  Package uses %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[!]  Packages have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils (for
%update_maven_depmap macro)
You are missing proper requires post/postun on jpackage-utils

=== Other suggestions ===
[x]  If possible use upstream build method (maven/ant/javac)
[x]  Avoid having BuildRequires on exact NVR unless necessary
[x]  Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[-]  Latest version is packaged.
already explained
[x]  Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
Tested on: rawhide-x86_64

=== Issues ===
1. Doccumentation
2. Requires on main package in javadoc subpackage
3. Versionless jar
4. Use -Dmaven.test.failure.ignore and add comment
5. File bug against plexus-mail-sender
6. Requires for jpackage-utils in post/postun

[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
[6] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Filenames

-- 
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.