Bug 530986
| Summary: | Review Request: janino - An embedded Java compiler | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Mary Ellen Foster <mefoster> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako> |
| Status: | CLOSED ERRATA | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | akurtako, che666, fedora-package-review, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | akurtako:
fedora-review+
kevin: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | 2.5.15-3.fc12 | Doc Type: | Bug Fix |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-12-16 01:21:35 UTC | Type: | --- |
| Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
| Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
| Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
| oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
| Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
| Embargoed: | |||
| Bug Depends On: | |||
| Bug Blocks: | 540986 | ||
|
Description
Mary Ellen Foster
2009-10-26 12:15:20 UTC
In this case I'll take this one :). Just to note that JPackage's version has nothing to do with me. Here's a new version. Changes: - Removed gcj stuff - Modified note in changelog to refer correctly to source package http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/sesame/janino.spec http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/sesame/janino-2.5.15-2.fc11.src.rpm Some minor issues:
rpmlint is not happy:
janino-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Java
janino.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Java
janino.noarch: W: no-documentation
I don't see any documentation included so this is ok but the other 2 should be Documentation and Development/Tools.
Javadoc subpackage description is better to be "API documentation for %{name}."
NOT OK: rpmlint see previous comment
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license.
OK: No docs provided by upstream.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English.
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as provided in the spec URL.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that directory.
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's %files listings.
OK *: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a %defattr(...) line.
It would be better if you use the defaults (-,root,root,-)
OK: Each package must have a %clean section, which contains rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: Each package must consistently use macros.
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content.
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage.
OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other packages. OK: At the beginning of %install, each package MUST run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT).
OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.
Only issues are group names and using default permissions. They are pretty minor and once I see them fixed the package will be approved.
Please set the fedora-review flag to '?' if you are reviewing. Thanks for the quick review turnaround! I've fixed the group names and file permissions here: http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/sesame/janino.spec http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/sesame/janino-2.5.15-3.fc11.src.rpm APPROVED. Oops, just realised that the fedora-cvs flag never got set on this ... Also, the proper link for the final SRPM is http://mef.fedorapeople.org/packages/sesame/janino-2.5.15-3.fc12.src.rpm I see no CVS request here. Please submit a CVS request as described in https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVS_admin_requests and set the fedora-cvs flag back to '?'. Sorry about that ... :( New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: janino Short Description: An embedded Java compiler Owners: mef Branches: F-11 F-12 InitialCC: cvs done. janino-2.5.15-3.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/janino-2.5.15-3.fc11 janino-2.5.15-3.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/janino-2.5.15-3.fc12 janino-2.5.15-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update janino'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F11/FEDORA-2009-12215 janino-2.5.15-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. If you want to test the update, you can install it with su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update janino'. You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/F12/FEDORA-2009-12239 janino-2.5.15-3.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. janino-2.5.15-3.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. just curious, according to: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines the aot compile should be included. why did you remove it? are their building problems with it? will you add them back? |