Bug 227044

Fixed spec and srpm:

http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/checkstyle/checkstyle.spec
http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/checkstyle/checkstyle-4.1-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm

Some lines are > 80 characters.

Most of them are file names, so they cannot broken. There is also one perl
command which extends to > 80 which I did not break because I think it looks
cleaner on one line.

MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* verify source and patches
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used properly
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* packages meet FHS
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output

$ rpmlint  checkstyle-4.1-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm 
W: checkstyle non-standard-group Development/Build Tools

Let's make this Development/Tools

* changelog fine
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* License used and not Copyright 
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86

/usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Could not find excalibur/avalon-logkit Java
extension for this JVM
/usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Some specified jars were not found

I removed this to make it build

* BuildRequires are proper
* summary fine
* description fine
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
  . I'm fine with the ones that aren't
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* no libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel sub-package necessary
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* %makeinstall not used
* no locale data
* cp -p used
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web app
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs

W: checkstyle non-standard-group Development/Build Tools
W: checkstyle-demo non-standard-group Development/Build Tools

These are fine but let's just make it Development/Tools

W: checkstyle-demo no-documentation

This is fine if there's nothing in the upstream sources

E: checkstyle-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle-4.1/package-list

Hmm, this should be fixed.

W: checkstyle-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/checkstyle-manual-4.1/api
/usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle

This should also be fixed.

W: checkstyle-manual symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/checkstyle-manual-4.1/api /usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle

This too

W: checkstyle-optional non-standard-group Development/Build Tools

See above.

W: checkstyle-optional no-documentation

Fine.

FYI, it builds in mock for me.

I:
- fixed the groups
- removed excalibur-avalon-logkit dependency (it seems spurious)
- fixed the dangling symlinks issue
- removed an rm -rf in %install that shouldn't have been there to begin with

Fixed spec and srpm:

http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/checkstyle/checkstyle.spec
http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/checkstyle/checkstyle-4.1-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm

APPROVED!

Thanks, Deepak.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: checkstyle
Short Description: Java source code checker
Owners: nsantos
Branches: devel
InitialCC: rafaels,dbhole

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: checkstyle
New Branches: EL-5
Updated EPEL Owners: rob.myers.edu

rob myers wrote:
> I'd like to have eclipse-checkstyle available in EPEL5.  Of course that
> requires checkstyle to be in EPEL5.  Are you interested in EPEL?  If you
> are not interested in EPEL I would be willing to become a co-maintainer
> of these packages for the purposes of EPEL5 support.

Hi Rob,

due to my main project workload, I probably will not be able to assist 
with packaging for EPEL, so if you're willing to be a co-maintainer I'd 
appreciate it. The last link below doesn't have a lot of details, so 
please let me know what steps I need to take (if any) to make you a 
co-maintainer.

Thanks,
Nuno

branch done. Per the above template I branched for EL-5 and made Rob the
maintainer there.