[Bug 495411] Review Request: dnsjava - Java DNS implementation

[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.


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=495411





--- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora at gmail.com>  2009-04-14 18:30:57 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #4)
> (In reply to comment #3)
> 
> >    dnsjava.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dnsjava-2.0.6/Changelog
> >       We need to fix this. "iconv" will help.
> Off course I seen this. But I do not know from *what* encoding it should be
> recoded. Enca also do not help me:
> $ enca Changelog
> Unrecognized encoding
> 

Isn't it iso-8859-1 ? Just guessing.

> I think it is not very big problem in any case.
> 
> > ! There are some example .java files in the root of the tarball. Their usage
> > are explained in the USAGE file. I think these .java files need to go to %doc
> > (of the main package). Alternatively, you can build them and put them in
> > %{_datadir}/%{name} or so. (You mention about these files in the %description
> > too)
> Ok, I put *.java into docs.
> 

    install -d %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
    install *.java %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/
Just a notice: We generally pass a -p switch to install to preserve timestamps.

But actually, you don't need to install them explicitly in %install
It's enough to put *.java to %doc. Actually, when you put *.java to %doc, it
will copy them one more time and the above installation will get overriden.


> > * There is a tests directory. The README file mentions about building and
> > running these compile tests. We should make a %check section and run these
> > tests, if possible.
> Tests added.
> 
> > * README file says: 
> >    "dnsjava is placed under the BSD license.  Several files are also under
> >    additional licenses; see the individual files for details."
> > I found that the files org/xbill/DNS/Tokenizer.java,
> > org/xbill/DNS/ZoneTransferIn.java are licensed under MIT
> > This makes the license BSD and MIT
> I must place "BSD and MIT" into License tag? Or what I must do with it?
> 

Yes. 
License: BSD and MIT


> > ! Also these comments are not needed. They can be removed:
> >    #Epoch:         0
> >    #Vendor:                JPackage Project
> >    #Distribution:  JPackage
> Off course. I comment out it, but leave for historical reasons. Any
> disadvantage from it?
> 

No, it doesn't really matter. I just said that for making things cleaned up.

> 
> > * These BR's seem unnecessary: jce, java-javadoc
> Why? It comes from JPackage rpm and i do not touch this.
> 

jce is provided by both java-1.6.0-openjdk and java-1.5.0-gcj. Adding BR:jce
(without a version) will pull java-1.5.0-gcj, which is already being pulled by
BR: java-gcj-compat-devel >= 1.0.31. Also, java-1.6.0-openjdk is pulled via
java-devel >= 1.7 anyways. 

java-javadoc is not needed during the building of the package. The guidelines
forbid unnecessary BR's.


> > * BR: jpackage-utils is listed twice.
> Fixed.
> 

It's still there. I guess you removed R: jpackage-utils instead.



Other than these, the package does not build with gcj. You need to add 
   BR: java-devel >= 1.7
also
    R: java >= 1.7
(I'm confused. Didn't you have these before already? Did you remove them?)

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.