[Bug 193898] Review Request: Jython - Java source interpreter

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: Review Request: Jython -  Java source interpreter


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193898





------- Additional Comments From green at redhat.com  2006-12-20 08:33 EST -------
Thanks Andrew.  Here's the full review.  I only have two comments.  One seems
easy and the other looks like a little more work.  Look for the lines starting
in 'X'.

* package meets and packaging guidelines.
* specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently.
* dist tag is present.
* build root is correct.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* License text included in package.
* source files match upstream (extracted from upstream cvs so no md5sum available.)
* latest version is being packaged.
* BuildRequires are proper.
* package builds in mock.

* rpmlint jython-2.2-0.1.a1.fc6.i386.rpm
W: jython invalid-license Modified CNRI Open Source License
We can ignore this.

rpmlint jython-demo-2.2-0.1.a1.fc6.i386.rpm
W: jython-demo invalid-license Modified CNRI Open Source License
E: jython-demo no-jar-manifest /usr/share/jython/Demo/jreload/example.jar
We can ignore these.

rpmlint jython-javadoc-2.2-0.1.a1.fc6.i386.rpm
W: jython-javadoc invalid-license Modified CNRI Open Source License
We can ignore this.

rpmlint jython-2.2-0.1.a1.fc6.src.rpm
W: jython invalid-license Modified CNRI Open Source License
We can ignore this.

X are these final provides and requires are sane?:
jython-2.2-0.1.a1.fc6.i386.rpm
  jython-2.2.jar.so
  jython = 2.2-0.1.a1.fc6
==
  java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.31
  jpackage-utils >= 0:1.5
  oro
  python >= 2.4
  servlet

Don't we need to Require libreadline-java and mysql-connector-java?

* shared libraries are present, but no ldconfig required.
* package is not relocatable.
* owns the directories it creates.
* doesn't own any directories it shouldn't.
* no duplicates in %files.
* file permissions are appropriate.
* %clean is present.
* %check is not present
* scriptlets OK
* code, not content.
X ht2html generated documentation isn't being generated even
  though we require ht2html.
  I think build.xml needs one more if="full-build" removed, and
  then these docs should probably go in a documentation package.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app (no .desktop file required).
* not a web app.


-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.