Bug 191015 - Review Request: javasvn
Summary: Review Request: javasvn
Status: CLOSED NEXTRELEASE
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
(Show other bugs)
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All Linux
medium
medium
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Jason Tibbitts
QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends On: 191014
Blocks: FE-ACCEPT 191016 191017
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
 
Reported: 2006-05-08 03:39 UTC by Robert Marcano
Modified: 2007-11-30 22:11 UTC (History)
1 user (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2006-07-03 02:33:33 UTC
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---


Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Robert Marcano 2006-05-08 03:39:46 UTC
Spec URL: http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn.spec
SRPM URL: http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn-1.0.4-1.src.rpm
Description: JavaSVN is a pure Java Subversion client library. You would like to use JavaSVN when
you need to access or modify Subversion repository from your Java application, be it
a standalone program, plugin or web application. Being a pure Java program, JavaSVN
doesn't need any additional configuration or native binaries to work on any OS that
runs Java

Comment 2 Parag AN(पराग) 2006-06-05 06:37:51 UTC
This not a review but some comments on SPEC file
rpmlint on your source rpm returns
W: javasvn summary-not-capitalized a pure Java Subversion client library
E: javasvn description-line-too-long JavaSVN is a pure Java Subversion client
library. You would like to use JavaSVN when
E: javasvn description-line-too-long you need to access or modify Subversion
repository from your Java application, be it
E: javasvn description-line-too-long a standalone program, plugin or web
application. Being a pure Java program, JavaSVN
E: javasvn description-line-too-long doesn't need any additional configuration
or native binaries to work on any OS that
W: javasvn invalid-license TMate License
E: javasvn unknown-key GPG#72a0dcfd


Comment 3 Ben Konrath 2006-06-14 04:35:50 UTC
We may have lost some useful comments here. It would be great if people could
re-post anything still relevant. Thanks.

Comment 4 Jason Tibbitts 2006-06-14 20:33:21 UTC
The only comment that was missing is:

------- Additional Comments From robert@marcanoonline.com  2006-06-11 19:06 EST
-------
updated

http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn.spec
http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn-1.0.4-3.src.rpm

I applied the debuginfo workaround explained on bug #191014

Checked rpmlint warnings:,
 invalid-license TMate License - http://tmate.org/svn/license.html
   What to to about it, it is a BSD license with an added clause about the
availiablity of the source code

 wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding for HTML files is not fixed because it is not
needed


Comment 5 Robert Marcano 2006-06-26 03:22:30 UTC
Updated:

http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn.spec
http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn-1.0.4-4.src.rpm

* Sun Jun 25 2006 Robert Marcano <robert@marcanoonline.com> 1.0.4-4
- created javadoc subpackage
- dependency changed from ganymed to ganymed-ssh2

Comment 6 Jason Tibbitts 2006-06-26 17:21:59 UTC
Note that 1.0.6 is out, and I can no longer fetch 1.0.4 from upstream.

I looked at the license and it seems acceptable to me, but it also doesn't
correspond to anything rpnlint already knows about.  I suggest just leaving
things as-is and ignoring the rpmlint complaint.  I also suggest ignoring the
non-standard-group warning on the javadoc subpackage.

W: javasvn invalid-license TMate License
W: javasvn-debuginfo invalid-license TMate License
W: javasvn-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: javasvn-javadoc invalid-license TMate License

Other than that it does build fine in mock (with ganymed-ssh2 in a local repo)
and looks OK.  If you update to 1.0.6 I'll do a full review.

Comment 8 Jason Tibbitts 2006-06-26 19:42:33 UTC
There's no reason to BuildReqires: coreutils; it's in the default buildroot.  It
would be pretty foolish to have a spec without cp and rm.

rpmlint says:
W: javasvn invalid-license TMate License
W: javasvn-debuginfo invalid-license TMate License
W: javasvn-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: javasvn-javadoc invalid-license TMate License
All of which are OK.

So no blockers.

Review:
* package meets naming and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.  License text included in package.
* source files match upstream:
   fcb8db8a61cde8b5191ff6b1b87c5977  org.tmatesoft.svn_1.0.6.src.zip
* latest version is being packaged.
O BuildRequires are proper (redundant BR: coreutils)
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
O rpmlint has ignorable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  javasvn-1.0.6-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   javasvn-1.0.6.jar.so()(64bit)
   javasvn = 1.0.6-1.fc6
  =
   /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db
   ganymed-ssh2 >= 209
   java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.33
   libgcj.so.7()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
  javasvn-javadoc-1.0.6-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   javasvn-javadoc = 1.0.6-1.fc6
  =
   (nothing)
* shared libraries are present, internal to gcj; rebuild-gcj-db is called properly)
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present; not test suite upstream.
* scriptlets present are OK (rebuild-gcj-db)
* code, not content.
* javadoc documentation split off to -javadoc subpackage.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

APPROVED


Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.