[Bug 227044] Review Request: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker

[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: checkstyle-4.1-3jpp - Java source code checker


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227044


overholt at redhat.com changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|overholt at redhat.com         |dbhole at redhat.com
               Flag|                            |fedora-review-




------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-02-16 12:36 EST -------
MUST:
* package is named appropriately
* it is legal for Fedora to distribute this
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* specfile name matches %{name}
* verify source and patches
* skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
* correct buildroot
* %{?dist} used properly
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* packages meet FHS
X rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output

$ rpmlint  checkstyle-4.1-4jpp.1.fc7.src.rpm 
W: checkstyle non-standard-group Development/Build Tools

Let's make this Development/Tools

* changelog fine
* Packager tag not used
* Vendor tag not used
* Distribution tag not used
* License used and not Copyright 
* Summary tag should not end in a period
* no PreReq
* specfile is legible
X package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86

/usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Could not find excalibur/avalon-logkit Java
extension for this JVM
/usr/bin/build-classpath: error: Some specified jars were not found

I removed this to make it build

* BuildRequires are proper
* summary fine
* description fine
* make sure lines are <= 80 characters
  . I'm fine with the ones that aren't
* specfile written in American English
* no -doc sub-package necessary
* no libraries
* no rpath
* no config files
* not a GUI app
* no -devel sub-package necessary
* macros used appropriately and consistently
* %makeinstall not used
* no locale data
* cp -p used
* split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
* package not relocatable
* package contains code
* package owns all directories and files
* no %files duplicates
* file permissions okay; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* %doc files do not affect runtime
* not a web app
* verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs

W: checkstyle non-standard-group Development/Build Tools
W: checkstyle-demo non-standard-group Development/Build Tools

These are fine but let's just make it Development/Tools

W: checkstyle-demo no-documentation

This is fine if there's nothing in the upstream sources

E: checkstyle-javadoc zero-length
/usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle-4.1/package-list

Hmm, this should be fixed.

W: checkstyle-manual dangling-symlink /usr/share/doc/checkstyle-manual-4.1/api
/usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle

This should also be fixed.

W: checkstyle-manual symlink-should-be-relative
/usr/share/doc/checkstyle-manual-4.1/api /usr/share/javadoc/checkstyle

This too

W: checkstyle-optional non-standard-group Development/Build Tools

See above.

W: checkstyle-optional no-documentation

Fine.

-- 
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.