[Bug 464014] Review Request: findbugs - Find bugs in Java code

[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=464014


Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|needinfo?(loganjerry at gmail. |
                   |com)                        |




--- Comment #8 from Jerry James <loganjerry at gmail.com>  2009-03-05 15:16:48 EDT ---
Lillian, thanks for the review.  I've been wanting to get this package into
Fedora for a very long time.  It's good to see that we're almost done with its
dependencies and have movement on the package itself.  Here are my responses to
the items raised above:

>   XXXX 1.4 No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries
>         The lib/*.jars and questionable files should be removed from the zip
> prior to uploading it. Please recreate the zip.

I do not know of any questionable files in the source release.  To what do you
refer?

By my reading of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL, I have to
use the unmodified zip file unless that file contains prohibited elements.  The
jars in the lib directory are all released under licenses that allow
redistribution.  This includes AppleJavaExtension.jar, whose license
information (included in lib/LICENSE_AppleJavaExtensions.txt) shows that that
jar is distributed under a slightly modified MIT license.  Unless I have
misunderstood something, I must not modify the zip file.  If I have
misunderstood, please help me understand.

Note that the spec file deletes all the jar files in the %prep stage, so none
of them are used in building.

>   XXXX 1.15 Requires
>  Have each on a separate "Requires" line. 
>   XXXX 1.16 BuildRequires
>  Have each on a separate "BuildRequires" line.

I do prefer keeping them on one line.  In my typical monitor setup, vertical
space is more precious than horizontal space.  Nevertheless, this is such a
minor point that I don't really want to argue about it, so I'll do it your way.

>   XXXX 1.17 Summary and description
>         Can you shorten the tools description. This is too much information-
> possibly remove the class names etc.

This information appears nowhere else.  If I take it out of the description,
where do you suggest I put it?

>   XXXX 1.23 Requiring Base Package
>  ok, but please put all "Requires" on a separate line

Done.

Now for the rpmlint complaints:

> ant-findbugs.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Build Tools

This is the group of ant itself, also maven.  Since groups aren't consumed by
any Fedora tools (they use comps.xml instead), the group really doesn't matter
anyway.  I think this choice is appropriate so that it corresponds to ant.

> findbugs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/findbugs-1.3.7/doc/manual_ja.xml

I included the entire doc directory in %doc.  But this file is input to
docbook, and shouldn't appear in the binary rpm.  It looks like the files named
manual* are no longer needed once the manual is built.  I'll delete them.

> findbugs.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/findbugs-1.3.7.jar

The ClassPath entry in the manifest is necessary to find dependent jars.  The
rpmlint complaint about older Java versions no longer applies to any supported
Fedora release, nor even to the latest RedHat EL.  It is true that versioned
ClassPath entries are inflexible, but note that I used only unversioned
entries.

> findbugs.src:109: E: hardcoded-library-path in ../../lib/findbugs-tools.jar

This is bogus.  That is the lib directory in the source distribution, not /lib
or /usr/lib.

> findbugs.src: W: non-coherent-filename findbugs-1.3.7-2.src.rpm findbugs-1.3.7-2.fc10.src.rpm

That's just a filename problem on my web site, not a spec file problem.  It
will have no effect on koji builds.  I'll give you a well-named file below.

> findbugs-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation

Same remark as the one above about the main package group.

New versions are here:
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs.spec
SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs-1.3.7-3.fc10.src.rpm

-- 
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.