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: system-switch-java - Java toolset switcher https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223627 ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-01-22 15:32 EST ------- Review: MUST: ? is this appropriate for Fedora? I guess with the pending release of OpenJDK it's fine. I'm just wondering whether people will be concerned that we're "making it too easy for people to use non-free software". I guess it's not really helping them to install it, but just to use it once they've got it installed, kinda like ex. rhythmbox working with the gstreamer MP3 plugin. * rpmlint on system-switch-java srpm gives no output ? package is named appropriately should the gui subpackage be 'gtk' instead of 'gnome'? are you calling it the "Duke Toolset Switcher" to get around the legal issues surrounding use of "Java"? * specfile name matches %{name} * package meets packaging guidelines. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text included in package and marked with %doc * specfile written in American English X specfile is legible your changelog entry has a weird date format and it seems too early :) X source files match upstream can you host the tarball somewhere? can we do an md5sum somehow? * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X BuildRequires are proper see below about desktop-file-utils * find_lang usage correct * package is not relocatable X package owns all directories and files is the ownership of %{_datadir}/pixmaps/*, etc. correct? X no %files duplicates why are the %doc files listed twice * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present * %clean present * macro usage is consistent * package contains code * no large docs so no -doc subpackage * %doc files don't affect runtime (N/A) * no shared libraries are present * no pkgconfig or header files * no -devel package * no .la files X desktop file you need to run desktop-file-install in %install and BuildRequires: desktop-file-utils * not a web app. * file ownership fine * binary RPMs function on x86 (well, I don't have any other JVMs to test against by both the GUI and the TUI seem to interact properly with consolehelper/pam and don't crash) * final provides and requires are sane $ rpm -q --provides -p system-switch-java-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm config(system-switch-java) = 1.0.0-1 system-switch-java = 1.0.0-1 $ rpm -q --provides -p system-switch-java-gnome-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm system-switch-java-gnome = 1.0.0-1 $ rpm -q --requires -p system-switch-java-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm /usr/bin/env chkconfig config(system-switch-java) = 1.0.0-1 libuser newt python rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 usermode $ rpm -q --requires -p system-switch-java-gnome-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm libglade2 pygtk2 pygtk2-libglade rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1 rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1 system-switch-java = 1.0.0-1 usermode-gtk SHOULD: * package includes license text * package builds on i386 * package builds in mock X consider using make %{?_smp_mflags} -- 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