[Bug 491581] Review Request: jVorbisEnc - Pure Java Ogg Vorbis Encoder

[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=491581


Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|nobody at fedoraproject.org    |mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se
               Flag|                            |fedora-review?




--- Comment #2 from Mattias Ellert <mattias.ellert at fysast.uu.se>  2009-04-30 13:23:09 EDT ---
Fedora review jVorbisEnc-0.1-2.fc10.src.rpm 2009-04-30

rpmlint output:

[ellert at ellert jVorbisEnc]$ rpmlint
5310124110877769772196/result/jVorbisEnc/*.rpm jVorbisEnc.spec 
jVorbisEnc.src:97: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
jVorbisEnc.x86_64: W: no-documentation
jVorbisEnc.spec:97: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package)
%{_libdir}/gcj/%{name}
4 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings.

* OK
! needs attention

* rpmlint warnings are bogus - rpmlint does not understand the
  conditional BuildArch.

* Package is named according to the guidelines

* The specfile is named after the package

* The package follows the guidelines for a native Java package.
  Disabling the broken AOT bits for ppc64 makes sense, and a bug
  report is filed.

* Package license is Fedora approved (BSD)

! The sources say: "THIS LIBRARY SOURCE IS GOVERNED BY A BSD-STYLE
  SOURCE LICENSE INCLUDED WITH THIS SOURCE IN 'COPYING'", but there is
  no COPYING file in the source tree! This is strange... Did upstream
  make a mistake creating the source tarfile? Also - one (and only
  one) of all the source files (src/biniu/vorbis/AllocChain.java) says
  it is LGPL. Is this an oversight from upstream, or is it
  intentional? This too seems strange. If this one source file really
  is LGPL, I don't think you can release the package as BSD, since
  LGPL is more restrictive and the most restrictive license "wins".
  But it seems strange that the licensing of the package should depend
  on a single source file containing 5 lines of code (excluding
  comments and empty lines). Is upstream aware of this bizarre
  situation?

* There is no license file, and hence it can not be installed as %doc

* The specfile is written in legible English

* Sources matches upstream:

8476478045d6f7c0114272bc8bab97e1  jVorbisEnc_src.zip
8476478045d6f7c0114272bc8bab97e1  SRPM/jVorbisEnc_src.zip

* Package builds in mock (Fedora 10)

* BuildRequires are sane

* No shared libraries

* Package owns the directories it creates

* No duplicate files

* Permissions are sane and %files has %defattr

* %clean clears buildroot

* Consistent use of macros

* Documentation in -javadoc package

* Package does not own other's directories

* %install clears buildroot

* Installed filenames are valid UTF-8

-- 
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.