Bug 473537

[ NB: Borrowing the review format from Jerry James ... ]

It's just recently been pointed out to me that there are specific GCJ guidelines for Java
packages at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines that should probably be
followed here unless there's a good reason not to.

MUST items:
- Output of rpmlint:
jcodings.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
--- Is there any documentation at all to be had from upstream?
- Package name: OK
- Spec file name: OK
- Packaging guidelines: note the GCJ thing above
- Licensing guidelines: OK
X License field matches: What is the license of this? JRuby as a whole is tri-licensed as
CPL/GPL/LGPL, so I'm not sure that "MIT" is the right content here
- Text license file in %doc: no, but it's not shipped with the source
- Spec file in American English: OK
- Spec file is legible: OK
- Sources match upstream: OK (checked with sha1sum)
- Compiles into binary RPMs on at least one platform: OK (checked on i386)
- Use of ExcludeArch: OK (I did not check other arches, but this is noarch)
- All build dependencies in BuildRequires: OK
- Proper locale handling: OK
- ldconfig: OK
- Relocatable package: OK
- Own all created directories: OK
- No duplicate entries in %files: OK
- Proper file permissions: OK
- %clean section: OK
- Consistent use of macros: OK
- Code or permissible content: OK
- Large documentation: OK (*no* documentation actually!)
- Nothing in %doc affects runtime: OK
- Header files in -devel: OK
- Static libraries in -static: OK
- Pkgconfig files: OK
- .so files in -devel: OK
- -devel package requires main package: OK
- No libtool archives: OK
- Desktop file: OK
- Don't own files/directories owned by other packages: OK
- Clean buildroot in %install: OK
- Filenames are UTF-8: OK

SHOULD items:
X Query upstream for missing license file: see the note at 
    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
  It's probably asking if they could put the license(s) into the tarball
- Description and summary translations: OK
- Package builds in mock: OK (checked for F-10 i386 only)
- Builds on all supported architectures: did not check
- Package functions as described: did not check
- Sane scriptlets: OK
- Subpackages require the base package: OK (n/a)
- Placement of pkgconfig files: OK
- File dependencies: OK

(In reply to comment #1)
> It's just recently been pointed out to me that there are specific GCJ
> guidelines for Java
> packages at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines that should
> probably be
> followed here unless there's a good reason not to.

Right, the big deal especially was that there was *no* non-gcj jdk/jre on F-7 PPC/PPC64. Now that F-7 is dead it's been pushed less, but IMO still important because openjdk doesn't JIT on PPC and thus GCJ is *much* faster. WILLDO.

> ...
> --- Is there any documentation at all to be had from upstream?

Not really -- this is mostly a new subproject of JRuby.

> ...
> X License field matches: What is the license of this? JRuby as a whole is
> tri-licensed as
> CPL/GPL/LGPL, so I'm not sure that "MIT" is the right content here

This particular subpackage is MIT-licensed. They like to abuse SVN and put a bunch of projects on the same server, even with different licenses.
Note the header at e.g. http://svn.jruby.codehaus.org/browse/~raw,r=7964/jruby/jcodings/trunk/src/org/jcodings/unicode/UnicodeCodeRanges.java

> ...
> SHOULD items:
> X Query upstream for missing license file: see the note at 
>     https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/LicensingGuidelines#License_Text
>   It's probably asking if they could put the license(s) into the tarball

Actually the tarball is automatically generated from SVN, so they need to put the license there. I'll ask.

http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/jcodings.spec
http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/jcodings-1.0-2.fc9.src.rpm

In koji:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1004755

Just fixing up the review flag.

Ping?

Argh, sorry about that ... Christmas holidays followed by $DAYJOB busy-ness. The changes look good, and the lack of documentation is annoying but I guess not a total show-stopper. It builds cleanly in mock for me.

Better later than never: APPROVED

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: jcodings
Short Description: Java Libraries for Ruby String Encodings
Owners: konradm
Branches: F-10
InitialCC:

cvs done.

Imported and built in rawhide. Closing.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1126104