[Bug 223627] Review Request: system-switch-java - Java toolset switcher

[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: system-switch-java - Java toolset switcher


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=223627





------- Additional Comments From overholt at redhat.com  2007-01-22 15:32 EST -------
Review:

MUST:
? is this appropriate for Fedora?  I guess with the pending release of
  OpenJDK it's fine.  I'm just wondering whether people will be
  concerned that we're "making it too easy for people to use non-free
  software".  I guess it's not really helping them to install it, but
  just to use it once they've got it installed, kinda like ex. rhythmbox
  working with the gstreamer MP3 plugin.
* rpmlint on system-switch-java srpm gives no output
? package is named appropriately
  should the gui subpackage be 'gtk' instead of 'gnome'?
  are you calling it the "Duke Toolset Switcher" to get around the legal issues
    surrounding use of "Java"?
* specfile name matches %{name}
* package meets packaging guidelines.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
X specfile is legible
  your changelog entry has a weird date format and it seems too early :)
X source files match upstream
  can you host the tarball somewhere?  can we do an md5sum somehow?
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
X BuildRequires are proper
  see below about desktop-file-utils
* find_lang usage correct
* package is not relocatable
X package owns all directories and files
  is the ownership of %{_datadir}/pixmaps/*, etc. correct?
X no %files duplicates
  why are the %doc files listed twice
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
* %doc files don't affect runtime (N/A)
* no shared libraries are present
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
X desktop file
  you need to run desktop-file-install in %install and BuildRequires:
desktop-file-utils
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
* binary RPMs function on x86 (well, I don't have any other JVMs to test
  against by both the GUI and the TUI seem to interact properly with
  consolehelper/pam and don't crash)
* final provides and requires are sane

$ rpm -q --provides -p system-switch-java-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
config(system-switch-java) = 1.0.0-1
system-switch-java = 1.0.0-1

$ rpm -q --provides -p system-switch-java-gnome-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
system-switch-java-gnome = 1.0.0-1

$ rpm -q --requires -p system-switch-java-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
/usr/bin/env  
chkconfig  
config(system-switch-java) = 1.0.0-1
libuser  
newt  
python  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
usermode 

$ rpm -q --requires -p system-switch-java-gnome-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
libglade2  
pygtk2  
pygtk2-libglade  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
system-switch-java = 1.0.0-1
usermode-gtk

SHOULD:
* package includes license text
* package builds on i386
* package builds in mock
X consider using make %{?_smp_mflags}

-- 
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.