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: jcommon - java jfreereport base utility library https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=434827 ------- Additional Comments From loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx 2008-04-30 23:18 EST ------- Here's my review. First, I'd like to know why "ant compile-xml" wasn't run. Do we know that none of the intended users of jcommon need the XML part? MUST: - rpmlint output: $ rpmlint jcommon $ rpmlint jcommon-javadoc jcommon-javadoc.i386: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation $ rpmlint jcommon-1.0.12-2.fc9.src.rpm jcommon.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 16, tab: line 4) - package naming guidelines: OK - spec file name matches package name: OK - packaging guidelines: see below - licensing guidelines: OK - license file in %doc: OK - spec file in American English: OK - spec file is legible: OK - sources match upstream: OK - binary RPM build on at least one arch: OK - ExcludeArch used appropriately: OK - All build dependencies in BuildRequires: OK for what is built. If we also build the XML jar, then a BuildRequires of "jaxp" is also necessary. The package containing jcommon-xml.jar (which I think should be a subpackage) also needs to Require jaxp in that case. - Handles locales properly: OK - Calls ldconfig if necessary: OK - Relocatable: OK - Owns all directories it creates: OK - No duplicate %files entries: OK - Permissions on files: OK - Clean section in spec file: OK - Consistent use of macros: OK - Code or permissible content: OK - Large documentation: OK - Documentation not needed to run: OK - Header files in -devel: OK - Static libraries in -static: OK - Proper use of pkgconfig: OK - .so files in -devel: OK - -devel requires main package: OK - No .la archives: OK - Desktop file: OK - Don't own directories owned by others: OK - Delete buildroot before install: OK - All filenames in UTF-8: OK SHOULD: - License file: OK - Summary and description translations: OK - Builds in mock: OK - Compiles on all architectures: cannot check - Package functions as described: OK - Sane scriptlets: OK - Subpackages require main package: NO, the javadoc subpackage does not do this - Placement of pkgconfig files: OK - File dependencies: OK Packaging guidelines: The Java and GCJ guidelines are followed, except that they want the javadoc subpackage to Require both jpackage-utils and the main package. This is not listed as a MUST. Summary: as long as the jcommon-xml.jar file is produced or a rationale for why it should not be is offered, the only failing items are SHOULD items. The failing SHOULD items are: - Mixed use of tabs and spaces in the spec file - Javadoc subpackage does not Require jpackage-utils and the main 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