Bug 811661 - Review Request: scirenderer - A Java rendering library based on JoGL
Summary: Review Request: scirenderer - A Java rendering library based on JoGL
Alias: None
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review
Version: rawhide
Hardware: All
OS: Linux
Target Milestone: ---
Assignee: Nobody's working on this, feel free to take it
QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
Depends On: JOGL2
TreeView+ depends on / blocked
Reported: 2012-04-11 16:20 UTC by Clément DAVID
Modified: 2013-04-12 14:13 UTC (History)
4 users (show)

Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Clone Of:
Last Closed: 2012-11-23 08:01:58 UTC
Type: ---
brendan.jones.it: fedora-review+
gwync: fedora-cvs+

Attachments (Terms of Use)

Description Clément DAVID 2012-04-11 16:20:10 UTC
Spec URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/scirenderer.spec
SRPM URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/scirenderer-0.3.5-1.fc16.src.rpm
This Java API allows 2-D or 3-D plotting from simple 2-D graph to complex
Independent library and used within Scilab software but is
available for other application and developments.

Note that this will be a strong dependency for Scilab 5.4.0 - beta

Comment 1 Clément DAVID 2012-04-13 07:31:02 UTC
Spec URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/scirenderer.spec
SRPM URL: http://davidcl.fedorapeople.org/scirenderer-0.3.5-2.fc16.src.rpm

changes: Fix the javadoc build issues (non ASCII characters).
rpmlint: PASS
koji build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=3987042

Comment 2 Alexander Kurtakov 2012-04-20 13:55:37 UTC
The bug should be in new state until someone take it.

Comment 4 Brendan Jones 2012-10-29 20:12:02 UTC
Nice work. This follows the java guidelines exactly. License is good.

Scratch build successful http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=4636605


Package Review

[x] = Pass
[!] = Fail
[-] = Not applicable
[?] = Not evaluated
[x] = Manual review needed

[!]: Package installs properly.
     Note: Installation errors (see attachment)
See: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Guidelines

===== MUST items =====

[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
     other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
     supported primary architecture.
     Note: Using prebuilt packages
[x]: %build honors applicable compiler flags or justifies otherwise.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
     are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
     Note: Using prebuilt rpms.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
     beginning of %install.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[x]: Each %files section contains %defattr if rpm < 4.4
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[+]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[+]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[+]: Package is not known to require ExcludeArch.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
     Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in %package
[+]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Spec file lacks Packager, Vendor, PreReq tags.
[+]: Large documentation files are in a -doc subpackage, if required.
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
     in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
     for the package is included in %doc.
[+]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
     Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses found:
     "Unknown or generated". 1 files have unknown license. Detailed output of
     licensecheck in /home/bsjones/rpmbuild/SRPMS/review-
[+]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[+]: Package consistently uses macro is (instead of hard-coded directory
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[+]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[+]: Package does not generate any conflict.
     Note: Package contains no Conflicts: tag(s)
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[+]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
     Provides are present.
[+]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[+]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[+]: Package installs properly.
[+]: Package is not relocatable.
[+]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[x]: CheckResultdir
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
     Note: No rpmlint messages.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
     in the spec URL.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.

[ ]: If source tarball includes bundled jar/class files these need to be
     removed prior to building
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
[x]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages, if present.
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
[x]: Javadoc subpackages have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)

[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
     when building with ant

===== SHOULD items =====

[!]: Reviewer should test that the package builds in mock.
[x]: Buildroot is not present
[x]: Package has no %clean section with rm -rf %{buildroot} (or
[+]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate file
     from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: No file requires outside of /etc, /bin, /sbin, /usr/bin, /usr/sbin.
[+]: Final provides and requires are sane (rpm -q --provides and rpm -q
[?]: Package functions as described.
[+]: Latest version is packaged.
[-]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[x]: The placement of pkgconfig(.pc) files are correct.
[x]: SourceX tarball generation or download is documented.
[x]: SourceX / PatchY prefixed with %{name}.
[x]: SourceX is a working URL.
[-]: Description and summary sections in the package spec file contains
     translations for supported Non-English languages, if available.
[?]: Package should compile and build into binary rpms on all supported
[-]: %check is present and all tests pass.
[ ]: Packages should try to preserve timestamps of original installed files.
[x]: Spec use %global instead of %define.

[+]: Package has BuildArch: noarch (if possible)
[+]: Package uses upstream build method (ant/maven/etc.)

===== EXTRA items =====

Checking: scirenderer-1.0.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm
3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

scirenderer-1.0.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

scirenderer-javadoc-1.0.2-1.fc19.noarch.rpm (rpmlib, GLIBC filtered):

    scirenderer = 1.0.2-1.fc19

    scirenderer-javadoc = 1.0.2-1.fc19

MD5-sum check
http://forge.scilab.org/index.php/p/scirenderer/downloads/get/scirenderer-1.0.2.tar.gz :
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) this package     : 9fb2e3a152a7b56794286b295291ebec7b8b9fe2f4cf779134c3b216ce0dc17d
  CHECKSUM(SHA256) upstream package : 9fb2e3a152a7b56794286b295291ebec7b8b9fe2f4cf779134c3b216ce0dc17d

Generated by fedora-review 0.3.1 (b71abc1) last change: 2012-10-16
Buildroot used: fedora-16-x86_64
Command line :/usr/bin/fedora-review --rpm-spec --prebuilt --name scirenderer

Comment 5 Clément DAVID 2012-10-30 10:48:11 UTC
New Package SCM Request
Package Name: scirenderer
Short Description: A Java rendering library based on JoGL
Owners: davidcl
Branches: f17 f18 el6
InitialCC: java-sig

Comment 6 Gwyn Ciesla 2012-10-30 11:18:37 UTC
Git done (by process-git-requests).

Brendan, please take ownership of review BZs, thanks!

Comment 7 Fedora Update System 2012-11-16 14:02:06 UTC
scirenderer-1.0.2-2.fc18 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 18.

Comment 8 Fedora Update System 2012-11-16 14:31:21 UTC
scirenderer-1.0.2-2.fc17 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 17.

Comment 9 Fedora Update System 2012-11-17 02:26:11 UTC
scirenderer-1.0.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 testing repository.

Comment 10 Fedora Update System 2012-11-23 08:02:02 UTC
scirenderer-1.0.2-2.fc18 has been pushed to the Fedora 18 stable repository.

Comment 11 Fedora Update System 2012-11-28 11:33:34 UTC
scirenderer-1.0.2-2.fc17 has been pushed to the Fedora 17 stable repository.

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