Bug 231732 - Review Request: sinjdoc - Documentation generator for Java source code
Review Request: sinjdoc - Documentation generator for Java source code
Status: CLOSED CURRENTRELEASE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Andrew Overholt
Fedora Package Reviews List
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2007-03-10 17:06 EST by Thomas Fitzsimmons
Modified: 2008-05-26 10:27 EDT (History)
1 user (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version: 0.5-6.fc9
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-05-26 10:27:35 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
overholt: fedora‑review+
wtogami: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Thomas Fitzsimmons 2007-03-10 17:06:52 EST
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.
Comment 1 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2007-03-11 14:34:01 EDT
I confirmed that this package builds in mock.
Comment 2 Andrew Overholt 2007-03-12 16:00:15 EDT
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
Comment 3 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2007-03-13 00:19:26 EDT
(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.
Comment 4 Andrew Overholt 2007-03-14 12:31:17 EDT
APPROVED

Thanks, Tom.  You now need to set the fedora-cvs to ? but leave this assigned to me.
Comment 5 Warren Togami 2007-03-14 15:22:49 EDT
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/CVSAdminProcedure
Please make an explicit request so we know exactly what you want and where.
Comment 6 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2007-03-14 16:02:52 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: sinjdoc
Short Description: Documentation generator for Java source code
Owners: fitzsim@redhat.com
Branches:
InitialCC: overholt@redhat.com
Comment 7 Jens Petersen 2007-03-15 02:42:06 EDT
done
Comment 8 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2007-03-21 09:29:21 EDT
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.
Comment 9 Jens Petersen 2007-03-21 23:56:44 EDT
Please follow the steps in
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackageMaintainers/PackageEndOfLife
Comment 10 Thomas Fitzsimmons 2007-03-22 10:46:22 EDT
CCing Warren: this one should be completely removed from /cvs/extras too, to
prepare for the merge.
Comment 11 Warren Togami 2007-03-22 13:53:05 EDT
Removed completely from /cvs/extras
Comment 12 Brian Pepple 2008-05-25 19:53:21 EDT
Thomas, has this package been built?  If so, this bug can be closed.

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