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: scala - Hybrid functional/object-oriented language https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=426867 ------- Additional Comments From leamas@xxxxxxxxxxxx 2008-01-12 04:47 EST ------- Seems that the sponsors hesitates to handle java applications in the absence of guidelines for these apps. And I, being a rookie as you, need to show some skills to get a sponsor. Make an informal review, that is. Licensing: The documentation refers to a "BSD-like" license defined in the file docs/LICENSE. It seems to be a specific scala license, not one of the "good" ones in wiki/Licensing. Missing build dependencies: update-mime-database shared-mime-info (post/postun) pkg-config pkgconfig svn subversion mock test fails on missing svn (subversion). After adding subversion it fails with: /var/tmp/rpm-tmp.96363: line 77: clean: command not found The placement of the post/postun scriptlets at the very end is unusual. Normal place is after the %install, why not stick to this? The package includes not only the upstream source tarball, but also the binary distribution tarball scala-2.6.1-final. This contains generated stuff (e. g., jar files) and raises issues whether all source is included according to wiki/Packaging/Guidelines. It definitely breaks wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java Package contains a devel subpackage, makes no sense in a java context and breaks wiki/PackagingDrafts/Java. devel contains a configuration file, belongs to another (sub) package? Discussion: seems that java packages requires a whole lot of copying in %install. Is this the right place, would it be better to use ant or make to clean up the spec file, to make it look more like a normal make-based spec-file? Is there any (other) good example of a packaged java-app out there? OK Rpmlint is silent OK Package name OK Spec file name. OK Licensing: BSD is OK (but see above). - License: tag matches Licensing in code - see above OK License included in doc - see above - Meets Packaging guidelines - see above. OK Spec file in American English: I'm from Sweden, but to my understanding... OK Spec file legible OK Source MD5sum: 34851e6b001955b169529397d499f17f upstream and in src.rpm OK Builds on i386 OK This is platform-independent java code. - Build dependencies - see above OK Locales management - n/a, this is java code OK Libraries - n/a OK Not relocateble - n/a OK Owns it's directories. OK No %file duplicates OK File permissions OK %clean target OK Consistent macro usage OK Code/permissive content (this is just code). OK Documentation is in separate package. -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review