Red Hat Bugzilla – Bug 473537
Review Request: jcodings - Java Libraries for Ruby String Encodings
Last modified: 2009-02-13 22:54:57 EST
Spec URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SPECS/jcodings.spec
SRPM URL: http://konradm.fedorapeople.org/fedora/SRPMS/jcodings-1.0-1.fc9.src.rpm
Java libraries for handling JRuby string encodings.
[ NB: Borrowing the review format from Jerry James ... ]
It's just recently been pointed out to me that there are specific GCJ guidelines for Java
packages at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines that should probably be
followed here unless there's a good reason not to.
- Output of rpmlint:
jcodings.noarch: W: no-documentation
2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
--- Is there any documentation at all to be had from upstream?
- Package name: OK
- Spec file name: OK
- Packaging guidelines: note the GCJ thing above
- Licensing guidelines: OK
X License field matches: What is the license of this? JRuby as a whole is tri-licensed as
CPL/GPL/LGPL, so I'm not sure that "MIT" is the right content here
- Text license file in %doc: no, but it's not shipped with the source
- Spec file in American English: OK
- Spec file is legible: OK
- Sources match upstream: OK (checked with sha1sum)
- Compiles into binary RPMs on at least one platform: OK (checked on i386)
- Use of ExcludeArch: OK (I did not check other arches, but this is noarch)
- All build dependencies in BuildRequires: OK
- Proper locale handling: OK
- ldconfig: OK
- Relocatable package: OK
- Own all created directories: OK
- No duplicate entries in %files: OK
- Proper file permissions: OK
- %clean section: OK
- Consistent use of macros: OK
- Code or permissible content: OK
- Large documentation: OK (*no* documentation actually!)
- Nothing in %doc affects runtime: OK
- Header files in -devel: OK
- Static libraries in -static: OK
- Pkgconfig files: OK
- .so files in -devel: OK
- -devel package requires main package: OK
- No libtool archives: OK
- Desktop file: OK
- Don't own files/directories owned by other packages: OK
- Clean buildroot in %install: OK
- Filenames are UTF-8: OK
X Query upstream for missing license file: see the note at
It's probably asking if they could put the license(s) into the tarball
- Description and summary translations: OK
- Package builds in mock: OK (checked for F-10 i386 only)
- Builds on all supported architectures: did not check
- Package functions as described: did not check
- Sane scriptlets: OK
- Subpackages require the base package: OK (n/a)
- Placement of pkgconfig files: OK
- File dependencies: OK
(In reply to comment #1)
> It's just recently been pointed out to me that there are specific GCJ
> guidelines for Java
> packages at https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/GCJGuidelines that should
> probably be
> followed here unless there's a good reason not to.
Right, the big deal especially was that there was *no* non-gcj jdk/jre on F-7 PPC/PPC64. Now that F-7 is dead it's been pushed less, but IMO still important because openjdk doesn't JIT on PPC and thus GCJ is *much* faster. WILLDO.
> --- Is there any documentation at all to be had from upstream?
Not really -- this is mostly a new subproject of JRuby.
> X License field matches: What is the license of this? JRuby as a whole is
> tri-licensed as
> CPL/GPL/LGPL, so I'm not sure that "MIT" is the right content here
This particular subpackage is MIT-licensed. They like to abuse SVN and put a bunch of projects on the same server, even with different licenses.
Note the header at e.g. http://svn.jruby.codehaus.org/browse/~raw,r=7964/jruby/jcodings/trunk/src/org/jcodings/unicode/UnicodeCodeRanges.java
> SHOULD items:
> X Query upstream for missing license file: see the note at
> It's probably asking if they could put the license(s) into the tarball
Actually the tarball is automatically generated from SVN, so they need to put the license there. I'll ask.
Just fixing up the review flag.
Argh, sorry about that ... Christmas holidays followed by $DAYJOB busy-ness. The changes look good, and the lack of documentation is annoying but I guess not a total show-stopper. It builds cleanly in mock for me.
Better later than never: APPROVED
New Package CVS Request
Package Name: jcodings
Short Description: Java Libraries for Ruby String Encodings
Imported and built in rawhide. Closing.