[Bug 985] Review request: ProjectX-0.90.4.00-2

[RPM Fusion Bugzilla]

http://bugzilla.rpmfusion.org/show_bug.cgi?id=985





--- Comment #11 from David Timms <dtimms at iinet.net.au>  2010-08-01 04:17:44 ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> There was a flurry of comments in the beginning, and then nothing happened. 
> I'm supposed to wait until someone has time to continue this review, right?
Correct, although you can appeal for reviewers or request review swaps on the
rpmfusion-devel list.

> I believe so, but because of the delay I just wanted to check this is not
> waiting for me to do something.
I forgot all about this one, sorry about that. I was really keen to get this
app into rpmfusion, but have little java build experience to enable me to say
much more about this package than I already noted.

That said:
1. Every time you make a published change to the spec, you need to bump the
release number, for eg. the original and current spec have (almost) identical
version-release. The fact that you missed doing that suggests you might need to
re-read the packaging guidelines:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Package_Release
I think the snapshot falls into the post release category.

This is important to help others track the package changes, and to ensure
upgrade-ability with the standard tools (rpm/yum/packagekit).
eg this should be at least -4.... so that it will replace -3 the last version.

2. The changelog info was not updated, other than overwriting the date of an
existing item, which doesn't make sense. See:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Changelogs
ps: you might light to try using a visual diff tool like meld to review your
changes, so that these can be placed in the changelog. It's a very different
spec (over 80% larger). An item should be added (not for every line change) to
describe the essence of each change:
- update to snapshot from cvs 2009-xxxx ?
- something about gcj ??

3. description: it's non-standard to double-space sentences.

4. Source: should at least include a correct upstream path. I think it would be
useful to place a comment:
- showing the release download link.
- the fact that you are using a snapshot, and why (eg last release 2006, fixes
only in snapshot)
- how the snapshot is generated, and preferably a script to generate the
snapshot, so that others can easily verify the download.

5. It can ease reading of the spec to separate the main sections with two-new
lines. At least this should be consistent through the spec.

6. %buildroot%_datadir : while Hans mentioned the reasoning behind using %{_x},
it would seem to make the spec clearer by using them eg in:
%buildroot%{_datadir}
, and is also widely used in fedora.

That's all I have for the moment. I'm happy to help further once you have a new
spec to review.


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