Spec URL: http://vivekl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/asm2.spec SRPM URL: http://vivekl.fedorapeople.org/rpms/asm2-2.1-2jpp.2.fc8.src.rpm ASM is a code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems. Needed for supporting application servers
Hi Vivek, An unofficial review of the package: ?? - Meets Packaging Guidelines. OK - Package named correctly NA - Patches named correctly OK - Spec file named correctly to match base NO * License is valid ?? - Licence field matches package OK - Licence file installed if supplied OK - Spec file in American English ?? - Source matches upstream (md5) NA - Locales use %find_lang OK - %clean is present and correct OK - Package has correct buildroot. OK - Specfile Legible OK - Builds in Mock NA - %post/%postun calls ldconfig for sh libs OK - Owns directories it creates OK - No duplicate files OK - Has %defattr and has correct permissions OK - Macros used consistently OK - %doc does not affect runtime NA - Headers/static libs in -devel NA - .pc files in -devel NA - .so files in -devel NA - -devel requires base OK - Contains no .la libtool archive files OK - Does not own others files NA - .desktop files installed correctly OK - BuildRequires correct. OK - Package is code or permissible content. OK - Package has rm -rf %{buildroot} at top of %install. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT used instead OK - Package compiles and builds on at least one arch. ?? - rpmlint output. OK - documentation in -doc package OK - final provides and requires are sane. OK - should have dist tag ?? - should package latest version - RPMLint against asm2-2.1-2jpp.2.fc8.src.rpm says: asm2.src: W: mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 31) asm2.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java asm2.src: W: invalid-license BSD-style - Source0 should be http://download.us.forge.objectweb.org/asm/%{name}-%{version}.tar.gz Moreover, I couldn't download the source from the specified location on Feb 02, 2008. Connection timed out. So I couldn't verify if the package is of latest version or not. - License 'BSD-style' is non standard.
Any response to Rajeesh's commentary? Any chance of getting this updated to our current Java guidelines? (No javadoc scriptlets, no jpp tag in the Release:, etc.)
Well, no response in over six months, and no response to additional prompting and needinfo. I've no choice but to close the Java package reviews that Vivek has opened. If someone feels the urge to flame me, please instead expend the effort updating these packages to current guidelines and reopening the tickets.