Bug 231732

I confirmed that this package builds in mock.

My only comment:  should we Obsolete/Provide gjdoc?

The only thing that needs fixing is the changelog entry.

MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
 - yes
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used properly
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* package meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/)
* rpmlint on sinjdoc-0.5-1.src.rpm gives no output
X changelog is fine
  - you have an extra space before the 8 ... perhaps just zero-pad it?
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* use License and not Copyright 
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
* BuildRequires are proper
* summary is a short and concise description of the package
* description expands upon summary
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package if necessary
* no static libs
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel necessary
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* %makeinstall not used
* no locale data
* no cp
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* there should be no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs present
* %clean should be present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web app
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs

  $ rpm -qp --provides ../RPMS/i386/sinjdoc-0.5-1.i386.rpm 
  sinjdoc.jar.so  
  sinjdoc = 0.5-1

* run rpmlint on the binary RPMs

  $ rpmlint ../RPMS/i386/sinjdoc-0.5-1.i386.rpm 
  W: sinjdoc unstripped-binary-or-object /usr/lib/gcj/sinjdoc/sinjdoc.jar.so

SHOULD:
* package includes license text in the package and marks it with %doc
* package builds on i386
* package builds in mock
  . didn't try, but Tom says it did for him

(In reply to comment #2)
> My only comment:  should we Obsolete/Provide gjdoc?

No, the two tools can be installed in parallel, and sinjdoc doesn't yet support
all of the command-line options that gjdoc supports.  I think for the first few
sinjdoc package releases we should keep gjdoc around, and obsolete gjdoc later.

> 
> The only thing that needs fixing is the changelog entry.

OK, I always use the Emacs rpm-mode changelog format.  I guess it pads dates
with spaces rather than numbers.  Anyway, it looks like I'll commit this package
on a double-digit date, so the padding is irrelevant.

The updated spec and SRPM files are at the same URLs.

I think this one is ready-to-go.

APPROVED

Thanks, Tom.  You now need to set the fedora-cvs to ? but leave this assigned to me.

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure
Please make an explicit request so we know exactly what you want and where.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: sinjdoc
Short Description: Documentation generator for Java source code
Owners: fitzsim
Branches:
InitialCC: overholt

done

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: sinjdoc

Remove from cvs.fedora.redhat.com:/cvs/extras, since this package has been added
to cvs.devel.redhat.com:/cvs/dist.

Please follow the steps in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife

CCing Warren: this one should be completely removed from /cvs/extras too, to
prepare for the merge.

Removed completely from /cvs/extras

Thomas, has this package been built?  If so, this bug can be closed.