[Bug 193896] Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: libreadline-java - Java wrapper for the GNU-readline library


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193896





------- Additional Comments From ifoox@xxxxxxxxxx  2006-09-08 10:33 EST -------
New files:
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java-0.8.0-11.src.rpm
http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/libreadline-java.spec

(In reply to comment #6)
> Hmm, this builds but will not install on current rawhide:
> 
> Error: Missing Dependency: readline = 5.0 is needed by package libreadline-java
> 
> Rawhide has readline 5.1; I changed readline_ver to match and it seems to be OK.  

Fixed.

> Also, there are a few rpmlint warnings; I think it now checks for more than it
> did when I first looked at this package.
> 
> W: libreadline-java macro-in-%changelog _jnidir
> W: libreadline-java macro-in-%changelog _libdir
>    You need to double any percent symbols that appear in the changelog, lest
> they be expanded in the final RPM.

Fixed.

> E: libreadline-java no-cleaning-of-buildroot
>    You need rpm -rf %{buildroot} at the beginning of %install.

Fixed.
 
> W: libreadline-java mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs
>    It's complaining about a couple of tabs after Group: (use "less -U" to see
> them).  This isn't a blocker.

Fixed.

> The debuginfo package is now missing the source again.  I'm at a loss as to why
> this is continually a problem, but it's not really a blocker.  Perhaps some day
> someone will actually understand what's going on here.

Hopefully. :-)

> You need to include COPYING.LIB as %doc.

Fixed.
 
> Shouldn't the jar file go in /usr/share/java?  If not, nothing in your
> dependency chain owns /usr/lib/java.

You are right, I'm not sure why it was in /usr/lib/java. Fixed.
 
> * source files match upstream:
>    501720ddded45eaedf429b7cc356107c  libreadline-java-0.8.0-src.tar.gz
> X package meets naming and packaging guidelines (non-numeric release bits).
> * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
> X dist tag is present.
Fixed.
> * build root is correct.
> * license field matches the actual license.
> * license is open source-compatible.
> X license text upstream but not included in package.
> * latest version is being packaged.
> * BuildRequires are proper.
> * compiler flags are appropriate.
> * %clean is present.
> * package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
> ? debuginfo package looks complete.
> X rpmlint has valid complaints
> X final provides and requires are sane:
>    libreadline-java = 0.8.0-10jpp_3fc
>   =
> X  readline = 5.0
>    /sbin/ldconfig
>    java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.31
>    /bin/sh
> * %check is not present; no test suite upstream.
> * a shared library is present and ldconfig is called properly.
> * package is not relocatable.
> ? owns the directories it creates.
> * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
> * no duplicates in %files.
> * file permissions are appropriate.
> * scriptlets OK (ldconfig, gcj-db)
> * code, not content.
> * javadocs split out into separate jackage.
> * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
> * no headers.
> * no pkgconfig files.
> * no libtool .la droppings.
> * unversioned .so in -devel subpackage.



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.

_______________________________________________
Fedora-package-review mailing list
Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]