Note: This is a beta release of Red Hat Bugzilla 5.0. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Also email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback here.

Bug 227032

Summary: Review Request: asm-1.5.3-2jpp - A code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Rafael H. Schloming <rafaels>
Component: Package ReviewAssignee: Deepak Bhole <dbhole>
Status: CLOSED WONTFIX QA Contact: Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: rawhideCC: tross, viveklak
Target Milestone: ---Keywords: Reopened
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Fixed In Version: Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2008-07-09 20:48:20 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:

Description Rafael H. Schloming 2007-02-02 17:28:55 UTC
Spec URL:
Description: ASM is a code manipulation tool to implement adaptable systems.

Javadoc for asm.

Comment 1 Nuno Santos 2007-02-13 17:02:56 UTC

OK: passes criteria
NO: fails criteria (errors included between "--" markers)
NA: non applicable
??: unable to verify

OK * package is named appropriately
OK - match upstream tarball or project name
OK - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for
OK - specfile should be %{name}.spec
OK - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or
OK - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see
OK - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be
   not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name
OK * is it legal for Fedora to distribute this?
OK - OSI-approved
OK - not a kernel module
OK - not shareware
OK - is it covered by patents?
OK - it *probably* shouldn't be an emulator
OK - no binary firmware
OK * license field matches the actual license.
OK * license is open source-compatible.
OK - use acronyms for licences where common
OK * specfile name matches %{name}
?? * verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do)
 - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
   how to generate the the source drop; ie. 
  # svn export blah/tag blah
  # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
OK * skim the summary and description for typos, etc.
NO * correct buildroot
 - should be:
   %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n)

BuildRoot:      %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-buildroot

NO * if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and %
NO * license text included in package and marked with %doc

included but not marked with %doc

OK * keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old?
OK * packages meets FHS (
NO * rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output
 - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there

$ rpmlint asm-1.5.3-2jpp.src.rpm 
W: asm non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java
E: asm unknown-key GPG#c431416d
W: asm mixed-use-of-spaces-and-tabs (spaces: line 9, tab: line 31)

OK * changelog should be in one of these formats:

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <> - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <> 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

  * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <>
  - 0.6-4
  - And fix the link syntax.

OK * Packager tag should not be used
NO * Vendor tag should not be used

Vendor:		JPackage Project

OK * use License and not Copyright 
OK * Summary tag should not end in a period
NA * if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post)
OK * specfile is legible
 - this is largely subjective; use your judgement
NO * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86

Cannot find build req  objectweb-anttask. Exiting.

?? * BuildRequires are proper
 - builds in mock will flush out problems here
 - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires:
   fedora-release (and/or redhat-release)
OK * summary should be a short and concise description of the package
OK * description expands upon summary (don't include installation
OK * make sure lines are <= 80 characters
OK * specfile written in American English
OK * make a -doc sub-package if necessary
 - see
NA * packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible
OK * don't use rpath
NA * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
NA * GUI apps should contain .desktop files
NA * should the package contain a -devel sub-package?
NO * use macros appropriately and consistently
 - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS

(cd $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name} && for jar in *-%{version}*; do \
ln -sf ${jar} ${jar/-%{version}/}; done)

OK * don't use %makeinstall
NA * locale data handling correct (find_lang)
 - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the
   end of %install
OK * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
NA * split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines
OK * package should probably not be relocatable
OK * package contains code
 - see
 - in general, there should be no offensive content
NO * package should own all directories and files

not all files listed (missing LICENSE.txt for example)

OK * there should be no %files duplicates
OK * file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present
OK * %clean should be present
OK * %doc files should not affect runtime
NA * if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www
?? * verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs
?? * run rpmlint on the binary RPMs

NO * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc

included but not marked with %doc

?? * package should build on i386
NO * package should build in mock

Cannot find build req  objectweb-anttask. Exiting.

Comment 2 Deepak Bhole 2007-02-15 01:07:05 UTC
New spec and srpm are here:

buildroot fixed
source locations fixed
encoding warnings fixed
javadoc attributes fixed 
license file added and marked %doc

Comment 3 Deepak Bhole 2007-04-25 18:37:08 UTC
This package was originally an indirect dependency of maven2, but is no longer

Comment 4 Deepak Bhole 2007-04-25 19:26:16 UTC
On second thought, I think I will keep this open. Although it is non-critical,
it should really be added into Fedora at some point..

Comment 5 Jason Tibbitts 2007-06-21 20:41:02 UTC
If you want this added to Fedora, why not go ahead and make a CVS request?

Comment 6 Vivek Lakshmanan 2007-08-13 23:41:04 UTC
*** Bug 252045 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Comment 7 Vivek Lakshmanan 2007-08-13 23:42:41 UTC
(In reply to comment #6)
> *** Bug 252045 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

This package is still needed. Please file a CVS request and subsequently merge
with spec from bug 252045 if possible.

Comment 8 Deepak Bhole 2008-07-09 20:48:20 UTC
objectweb-asm is already in fedora... closing this as WONTFIX.