Spec URL: http://fitzsim.org/packages/sinjdoc.spec SRPM URL: http://fitzsim.org/packages/sinjdoc-0.5-1.src.rpm Description: sinjdoc is a tool for generating Javadoc-style documentation from Java source code.
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.