[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn

[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: javasvn


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015


tibbs at math.uh.edu changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
OtherBugsDependingO|163778                      |163779
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs at math.uh.edu  2006-06-26 15:42 EST -------
There's no reason to BuildReqires: coreutils; it's in the default buildroot.  It
would be pretty foolish to have a spec without cp and rm.

rpmlint says:
W: javasvn invalid-license TMate License
W: javasvn-debuginfo invalid-license TMate License
W: javasvn-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation
W: javasvn-javadoc invalid-license TMate License
All of which are OK.

So no blockers.

Review:
* package meets naming 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:
   fcb8db8a61cde8b5191ff6b1b87c5977  org.tmatesoft.svn_1.0.6.src.zip
* latest version is being packaged.
O BuildRequires are proper (redundant BR: coreutils)
* package builds in mock (development, x86_64).
O rpmlint has ignorable complaints.
* final provides and requires are sane:
  javasvn-1.0.6-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   javasvn-1.0.6.jar.so()(64bit)
   javasvn = 1.0.6-1.fc6
  =
   /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db
   ganymed-ssh2 >= 209
   java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.33
   libgcj.so.7()(64bit)
   libz.so.1()(64bit)
  javasvn-javadoc-1.0.6-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm
   javasvn-javadoc = 1.0.6-1.fc6
  =
   (nothing)
* shared libraries are present, internal to gcj; rebuild-gcj-db is called properly)
* 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; not test suite upstream.
* scriptlets present are OK (rebuild-gcj-db)
* code, not content.
* javadoc documentation split off to -javadoc subpackage.
* %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package.
* no headers.
* no pkgconfig files.
* no libtool .la droppings.
* not a GUI app.

APPROVED

-- 
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.