My approach to fixing the use of an internal Sun class doesn't work for IcedTea.
 Here is a version that works with both gcj and IcedTea, and also fixes a few
other minor issues that turned up on F8.

Spec: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/idw-gpl/idw-gpl.spec
SRPM: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/idw-gpl/idw-gpl-1.5.0-2.src.rpm

This package is a precursor to getting findbugs into Fedora.

Here are new versions that reflect the recently released Java packaging guidelines.

Spec: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/idw-gpl/idw-gpl.spec
SRPM: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/idw-gpl/idw-gpl-1.5.0-3.src.rpm

I'll take this.

Hi Jerry.  Things look great.  I only have a few questions.

? = maybe or a question I have
OK = okay (surprisingly)
X = please fix

? license field matches the actual license.
  - it looks like they don't specify a version of the GPL.  Is "v2+"
    what we should assume here?
? Can you copy or move the comments about the patches to above the Patch
  lines?  Have you considered offering them to upstream?
? Have you compared the JAR we get with the upstream one?
? (pedantic) in Summary:  "Java Swing based" -> "Java Swing-based"
OK rpmlint on srpm
  idw-gpl.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
  Don't worry about this.
? consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
X in %files, change %{_javadir}/*.jar to %{_javadir}/%{name}* (or %{name}*.jar)
X in %files javadoc, change %{_javadocdir}/* to
  %{_javadocdir}/%{name}*
OK - the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs look fine
OK - run rpmlint on the binary RPMs
   idw-gpl.i386: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
   idw-gpl-javadoc.i386: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
  Don't worry about these.

Andrew, thanks for taking a look.  Here are my answers to the questions.
- License field: the actual Java source files all contain the "or (at your
option) any later version" clause in the headers, so that's why I went with GPLv2+.
- I sent the patches upstream months ago.  They told me they would like to apply
them all to their code base, and asked me to assign copyright to them.  I did. 
Time has passed, and they have not released a new version or communicated with
me again.  I moved the comments as requested.
- I have not compared this jar with upstream, good point.  It's a good thing you
asked me to do that, as I failed to package up some .png files.  The jar
produced by this spec file is still not identical to upstream, but the
differences are now cosmetic only.
- I changed "Swing based" to "Swing-based" in the Summary and description.
- The spec file now uses cp -p.
- I changed the two %files patterns.

Also, the conditional GCJ parts weren't in the guidelines when I made this
package.  I have added those.  Here's the latest version:

Spec: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/idw-gpl/idw-gpl.spec
SRPM: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/idw-gpl/idw-gpl-1.5.0-4.src.rpm

Thanks, Jerry.  Everything looks good.

I'm sorry I didn't think of this yesterday, but do you think we should add
Provides statements for ilf-gpl and itp-gpl?  Since we're packaging the LAF and
the tabbed panel all in this one RPM, I think virtual Provides are in order. 
What do you think?

Good point.  I wondered whether I should package all 3 up separately, in fact,
but then decided that since the upstream idw-gpl source package contained
everything, I should just make one package.  Here are new versions with the
virtual provides:

Spec: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/idw-gpl/idw-gpl.spec
SRPM: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/idw-gpl/idw-gpl-1.5.0-5.src.rpm

That looks good to me.  Thanks for all your hard work.

APPROVED.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: idw-gpl
Short Description: A Java Swing-based docking windows framework
Owners: jjames
Branches: F-8 F-9
InitialCC: 
Cvsextras Commits: yes

cvs done.