[Bug 472793] Review Request: jgraph - Java graph visualization and layout
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=472793
Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |CLOSED
CC| |lkundrak(a)v3.sk
Blocks| |201449(FE-DEADREVIEW)
Resolution| |CANTFIX
--- Comment #7 from Lubomir Rintel <lkundrak(a)v3.sk> 2009-10-31 09:13:17 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
The package looks pretty good. I will do a full review next update:
RPMLint was clean, mock was OK.
Comments:
----
Description is weasel-wordy:
Most powerful?
and more?
First free diagram editor for java -- I think jfig might beat it here (does
jfig have drag'n drop?)
100% pure Java (What does that mean?)
Duh? That it's written only in Java, with no platform-specific requirements?
Fully standards-compliant (What standard? ISO 9001? Why do I (user)
care?)
etc.
Interoperability?
Please make it a bit more descriptive of what the software actually
does, and
what the package provides. I can't really tell from the description -- is it
graphing software, can I make x-y plots? Or does it do network graph analysis?
Or just display them?
I believe your complains are pretty much bogus. Please do not confuse short
summary with documentation.
The README file is a little clearer "A component to display and
edit graphs
(networks) with Java" "With the JGraph zoomable component, you can display
objects and relations (networks) in any Swing UI."
Some ideas:
*Provides automatic 2D layout and routing for diagrams, for swing UIs
*Allows for generation a wide variety of object-connection relation diagrams
in a java user interface.
I've incorporated some of these.
I am getting errors during the RPM debug information extraction step
when
rebuilding (F10). A cursory examination makes me suspect it may be related to
this bug:
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472292
This is pretty much irrelevant to this package review.
Licencing is not clearly LGPLv2+. It might be LGPLv2. LICENSE does
not state if
it is "or any later", which is usually indicated in the source files (which do
not show GPL headers, as required by LICENSE). Please raise a bug upstream, and
for now the package will need to be LGPLv2 only.
Good catch! README pretty much suggests that terms in LICNESE.txt apply, so
there's probably no need to bug upstream here. Changed to LGPLv2.
> BuildRequires: dos2unix
I prefer not using dos2unix for endline conversion
This is a matter of taste and I'd prefer to follow packager's one, thus no
change here.
>%defattr(0644,root,root,0755)
You could simply use (-,root,root,-) here.. Its minor i know.
Done.
Also, can you please provide koji scratch builds against F-10, F-11?
Umm, no that's definitely not needed for review, feel free to do that yourself
(technically, one architecture-release combination is needed and there's no
clear reason why would they fail, nor indication that packager intends to
create branches for these).
Since this is a dead review, a new request was filed as bug #532203.
I will be thankful if you could continue the review there.
Also, I'll appreciate if you could maintain or co-maintain the package once
it's in.
--
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.