Bug 262401

Hello Jerry,

Before make a full review, we may need to modify some things in the current
specfile. Here is a list of stuff that should be fixed before we can review 
package.

- The package naming don't fit with the Packaging/NamingGuidline, I think that
this package fit good with pre-release package naming.
Version: 0
Release: 2006xxxx.1%{?dist}
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d2288206ac9bd8f1bf9b791b22a

- To build the javadoc for F8 (IcedTea is in rawhide), you can use the %fedora 
macro to check for witch release of Fedora the package is build -> %if
"%{fedora}" >= "8".

- Group tag is not correct, Development/Libraries seems to be the one to use.

Thanks for the comments.  I changed the name and version number as suggested.

For the javadocs, I just unconditionally build them (because not every arch will
have IcedTea, so the check with %{fedora} is insufficient).  The package
description for the javadocs notes that on systems with sinjdoc, the package
contains nothing useful.

As for the Group tag, I don't understand the problem.  On my machine, there are
64 packages in that group (e.g., axis, bcel, castor, jrefactory), and I
certainly have not installed all of the Java packages available from Fedora. 
Why should the final '/Java' be dropped?

The new files are here:
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations.spec
SRPM URL:
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations-0-20060626.1.src.rpm

Now that I can try IcedTea on an F8 machine, I found that the javadocs weren't
being packaged quite correctly.  Here is a new set of files that fixes the problem.

Spec: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations.spec
SRPM:
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations-0-20060626.2.src.rpm

Here are updated files that reflect the recently approved Java packaging guidelines.

Spec: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations.spec
SRPM:
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations-0-20060626.3.src.rpm

Taking for review.

+ rpmlint output

  jcip-annotations.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
  jcip-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation
  jcip-annotations.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
  jcip-annotations-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation

  The Java guidelines are all over the place on the usage of 'Group:'.
  I would rename 'Development/Libraries/Java' -> 'Development/Libraries'
  and leave the other one alone.

+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines
+ specfile name matches the package base name
+ package should satisfy packaging guidelines
+ license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora
  CC-BY
+ license matches the actual package license
- %doc includes license file

  You need to add %doc ..../package.html to the main package.

+ spec file written in American English
+ spec file is legible
+ upstream sources match sources in the srpm
  0a63cc4bca4a045aa56f3a12857857ea
+ package successfully builds on at least one architecture
n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed
+ BuildRequires list all build dependencies
n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/*
n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun
n/a does not use Prefix: /usr
+ package owns all directories it creates
+ no duplicate files in %files
+ %defattr line
+ %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
+ consistent use of macros
+ package must contain code or permissible content
n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage
n/a files marked %doc should not affect package
n/a header files should be in -devel
n/a static libraries should be in -static
n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig'
n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel
n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base
  ... but javadoc subpackage is OK
n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files
n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file
n/a packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages
+ %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc.
+ filenames must be valid UTF-8

Optional:

n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream
n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available
+ reviewer should build the package in mock
  Reviewer built it in Koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=592450
n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures
- review should test the package functions as described
n/a scriptlets should be sane
n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel
+ shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin

==============

Please add the %doc line, and if necessary rename the groups.  If you present
an updated package with these changes then there shouldn't be any issue getting
approval.

The package.html file is input to javadoc.  The file named package-summary.html
in the -javadoc subpackage contains that file, with some other stuff wrapping
it.  On the other hand, I should not be including the HTML file or the souce
files in the jar.  I'll fix that.

As for the groups, see comment #2.  There are lots of existing packages with the
same group names, and the Group tag is supposedly unimportant given comps.xml
anyway.  New version:

Spec: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations.spec
SRPM:
http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations-0-20060626.4.src.rpm

OK, fair enough.  I suspect it's a bug in rpmlint or else something
which needs to be discussed about the Java guidelines.  Anyway ...

==========

APPROVED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: jcip-annotations
Short Description: Java annotations for describing thread-safety policies
Owners: jjames
Branches: F-8 F-9
InitialCC: 
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done.

Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: jcip-annotations
New Branches: el6 epel7
Owners: richardfearn

Git done (by process-git-requests).