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

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Tue Jan 23 21:48:54 UTC 2007


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 fitzsim at redhat.com  2007-01-23 16:48 EST -------
(In reply to comment #2)
> 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.

Yes, I'm readying Fedora Extras for smooth integration of OpenJDK alongside
java-gcj-compat.

> * rpmlint on system-switch-java srpm gives no output
> ? package is named appropriately
>   should the gui subpackage be 'gtk' instead of 'gnome'?

I renamed it 'system-switch-java-gui'.

>   are you calling it the "Duke Toolset Switcher" to get around the legal issues
>     surrounding use of "Java"?

Yes, I didn't want to misrepresent the switcher as a Java-trademarked tool.  But
when re-examining this, I realized that System->Administration entries should be
simple, descriptive names rather than tool titles anyway.  So I've settled on
just "Java Toolset" for the menu entry, and "Java Toolset Configuration" for the
window title.  This implies "configuring the Java or Java-like toolset" rather
than "running the Java(TM) Toolset Switcher".

> * 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 :)

The date format is standard, but I updated the entry to be more current.

> X source files match upstream
>   can you host the tarball somewhere?

I'd like to maintain this as an SRPM-only package for now.

>   can we do an md5sum somehow?

9403b60da2e2bd3117f170d75a507ad3  SOURCES/system-switch-java-1.0.0.tar.bz2

> * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
> X BuildRequires are proper
>   see below about desktop-file-utils

Fixed.

> * find_lang usage correct
> * package is not relocatable
> X package owns all directories and files
>   is the ownership of %{_datadir}/pixmaps/*, etc. correct?

It turns out I didn't need the application-specific pixmaps sub-directory.  Fixed.

> X no %files duplicates
>   why are the %doc files listed twice

Fixed.

> * 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

Fixed.

> * 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}

Fixed.

I uploaded the updated spec and SRPM files.  The URLs are the same as above.


-- 
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.




More information about the Fedora-package-review mailing list