I'll take this one.

Review:

MUST:
? is this appropriate for Fedora?  I guess with the pending release of
  OpenJDK it's fine.  I'm just wondering whether people will be
  concerned that we're "making it too easy for people to use non-free
  software".  I guess it's not really helping them to install it, but
  just to use it once they've got it installed, kinda like ex. rhythmbox
  working with the gstreamer MP3 plugin.
* rpmlint on system-switch-java srpm gives no output
? package is named appropriately
  should the gui subpackage be 'gtk' instead of 'gnome'?
  are you calling it the "Duke Toolset Switcher" to get around the legal issues
    surrounding use of "Java"?
* specfile name matches %{name}
* package meets packaging guidelines.
* license field matches the actual license.
* license is open source-compatible.
* license text included in package and marked with %doc
* specfile written in American English
X specfile is legible
  your changelog entry has a weird date format and it seems too early :)
X source files match upstream
  can you host the tarball somewhere?  can we do an md5sum somehow?
* package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
X BuildRequires are proper
  see below about desktop-file-utils
* find_lang usage correct
* package is not relocatable
X package owns all directories and files
  is the ownership of %{_datadir}/pixmaps/*, etc. correct?
X no %files duplicates
  why are the %doc files listed twice
* file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
* %clean present
* macro usage is consistent
* package contains code
* no large docs so no -doc subpackage
* %doc files don't affect runtime (N/A)
* no shared libraries are present
* no pkgconfig or header files
* no -devel package
* no .la files
X desktop file
  you need to run desktop-file-install in %install and BuildRequires:
desktop-file-utils
* not a web app.
* file ownership fine
* binary RPMs function on x86 (well, I don't have any other JVMs to test
  against by both the GUI and the TUI seem to interact properly with
  consolehelper/pam and don't crash)
* final provides and requires are sane

$ rpm -q --provides -p system-switch-java-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
config(system-switch-java) = 1.0.0-1
system-switch-java = 1.0.0-1

$ rpm -q --provides -p system-switch-java-gnome-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
system-switch-java-gnome = 1.0.0-1

$ rpm -q --requires -p system-switch-java-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
/usr/bin/env  
chkconfig  
config(system-switch-java) = 1.0.0-1
libuser  
newt  
python  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
usermode 

$ rpm -q --requires -p system-switch-java-gnome-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
libglade2  
pygtk2  
pygtk2-libglade  
rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
system-switch-java = 1.0.0-1
usermode-gtk

SHOULD:
* package includes license text
* package builds on i386
* package builds in mock
X consider using make %{?_smp_mflags}

(In reply to comment #2)
> Review:
> 
> MUST:
> ? is this appropriate for Fedora?  I guess with the pending release of
>   OpenJDK it's fine.  I'm just wondering whether people will be
>   concerned that we're "making it too easy for people to use non-free
>   software".  I guess it's not really helping them to install it, but
>   just to use it once they've got it installed, kinda like ex. rhythmbox
>   working with the gstreamer MP3 plugin.

Yes, I'm readying Fedora Extras for smooth integration of OpenJDK alongside
java-gcj-compat.

> * rpmlint on system-switch-java srpm gives no output
> ? package is named appropriately
>   should the gui subpackage be 'gtk' instead of 'gnome'?

I renamed it 'system-switch-java-gui'.

>   are you calling it the "Duke Toolset Switcher" to get around the legal issues
>     surrounding use of "Java"?

Yes, I didn't want to misrepresent the switcher as a Java-trademarked tool.  But
when re-examining this, I realized that System->Administration entries should be
simple, descriptive names rather than tool titles anyway.  So I've settled on
just "Java Toolset" for the menu entry, and "Java Toolset Configuration" for the
window title.  This implies "configuring the Java or Java-like toolset" rather
than "running the Java(TM) Toolset Switcher".

> * specfile name matches %{name}
> * package meets packaging guidelines.
> * license field matches the actual license.
> * license is open source-compatible.
> * license text included in package and marked with %doc
> * specfile written in American English
> X specfile is legible
>   your changelog entry has a weird date format and it seems too early :)

The date format is standard, but I updated the entry to be more current.

> X source files match upstream
>   can you host the tarball somewhere?

I'd like to maintain this as an SRPM-only package for now.

>   can we do an md5sum somehow?

9403b60da2e2bd3117f170d75a507ad3  SOURCES/system-switch-java-1.0.0.tar.bz2

> * package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86
> X BuildRequires are proper
>   see below about desktop-file-utils

Fixed.

> * find_lang usage correct
> * package is not relocatable
> X package owns all directories and files
>   is the ownership of %{_datadir}/pixmaps/*, etc. correct?

It turns out I didn't need the application-specific pixmaps sub-directory.  Fixed.

> X no %files duplicates
>   why are the %doc files listed twice

Fixed.

> * file permissions are fine; %defattrs present
> * %clean present
> * macro usage is consistent
> * package contains code
> * no large docs so no -doc subpackage
> * %doc files don't affect runtime (N/A)
> * no shared libraries are present
> * no pkgconfig or header files
> * no -devel package
> * no .la files
> X desktop file
>   you need to run desktop-file-install in %install and BuildRequires:
> desktop-file-utils

Fixed.

> * not a web app.
> * file ownership fine
> * binary RPMs function on x86 (well, I don't have any other JVMs to test
>   against by both the GUI and the TUI seem to interact properly with
>   consolehelper/pam and don't crash)
> * final provides and requires are sane
> 
> $ rpm -q --provides -p system-switch-java-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
> config(system-switch-java) = 1.0.0-1
> system-switch-java = 1.0.0-1
> 
> $ rpm -q --provides -p system-switch-java-gnome-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
> system-switch-java-gnome = 1.0.0-1
> 
> $ rpm -q --requires -p system-switch-java-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
> /usr/bin/env  
> chkconfig  
> config(system-switch-java) = 1.0.0-1
> libuser  
> newt  
> python  
> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> usermode 
> 
> $ rpm -q --requires -p system-switch-java-gnome-1.0.0-1.noarch.rpm 
> libglade2  
> pygtk2  
> pygtk2-libglade  
> rpmlib(CompressedFileNames) <= 3.0.4-1
> rpmlib(PayloadFilesHavePrefix) <= 4.0-1
> system-switch-java = 1.0.0-1
> usermode-gtk
> 
> SHOULD:
> * package includes license text
> * package builds on i386
> * package builds in mock
> X consider using make %{?_smp_mflags}

Fixed.

I uploaded the updated spec and SRPM files.  The URLs are the same as above.

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> >   can we do an md5sum somehow?
> 
> 9403b60da2e2bd3117f170d75a507ad3  SOURCES/system-switch-java-1.0.0.tar.bz2

Okay, I've verified that I've got the same one.

My only remaining questions surround the use of consolehelper and pam.  But I
assume you know what you're doing here :)  Thus ...

APPROVED.  Thanks, Tom.

I do not want to sound picky, but
- the URL included in the spec is not very useful.
- The purpose of the md5sum check is to guarantee that the file included in the
src.rpm coincides with the one from the upstream source. Computing the md5sum by
the packager and by the reviewer based on the SAME file extracted from the same
src.rpm guarantees nothing.
- each modification to the spec should be reflected in the release tag and in
the changelog

In this special case, I suggest including a comment in the spec, specifying that
there is no other upstream but the src.rpm and, also, defining a real path for
the said src.rpm (hosting it for instance on http://fitzsim.org or on
people.redhat.com)

(In reply to comment #5)
> I do not want to sound picky,

I don't think any of it sounds picky :)  The only thing I disagree with is this:

> - each modification to the spec should be reflected in the release tag and in
> the changelog

Does it really matter if the release tag is bumped for pre-first build fixes?

I know 'the more the merrier', but as this package is a frontend to alternatives
(specific to java); I want to draw your attention to another pygtk frontend call
galternatives (already in Extras). It works for all packages using
/usr/sbin/alternatives and its more fine-grained. When i tried this package, it
only shows one radio button with 'GCJ'  selected, so I figure it does all the
other work in the background given multiple java implementations. However, with
galternatives, there are many pieces (related to java) that can be selected
alternatively, 'java', 'javac' 'jre_1.4.2', etc.

(In reply to comment #6)
As far as I know, yes, as subsequent versions can be used to follow the track
and examine what modifications have been performed.
See also
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines?highlight=%28release%29%7C%28bump%29#head-5ea39bbc33cf351b41b51325ac3527eff4c58dac


I bet this requirement is in the wiki, too... but I can't locate it now :)

(In reply to comment #5)
> I do not want to sound picky, but
> - the URL included in the spec is not very useful.

I'll change it to:

http://download.fedora.redhat.com/pub/fedora/linux/extras/7/SRPMS/system-switch-java-%{version}-%{release}.src.rpm

once the '7' directory has been created.

> - The purpose of the md5sum check is to guarantee that the file included in the
> src.rpm coincides with the one from the upstream source. Computing the md5sum by
> the packager and by the reviewer based on the SAME file extracted from the same
> src.rpm guarantees nothing.

It guarantees that the reviewer is reviewing the same tarball that I think he's
reviewing (i.e., that I didn't build the wrong tarball into the to-be-reviewed
src.rpm).  But I agree that in the case of no-upstream packages like this, the
md5sum step of the review process is less meaningful.

> - each modification to the spec should be reflected in the release tag and in
> the changelog

Not for review packages that have not yet entered the revision control system.

> 
> In this special case, I suggest including a comment in the spec, specifying that
> there is no other upstream but the src.rpm

OK, will do.

> and, also, defining a real path for
> the said src.rpm (hosting it for instance on http://fitzsim.org or on
> people.redhat.com)

I'm not going to do that because I don't intend to keep the fitzsim.org src.rpm
up-to-date.

(In reply to comment #7)
> I know 'the more the merrier', but as this package is a frontend to alternatives
> (specific to java); I want to draw your attention to another pygtk frontend call
> galternatives (already in Extras). It works for all packages using
> /usr/sbin/alternatives and its more fine-grained. When i tried this package, it
> only shows one radio button with 'GCJ'  selected, so I figure it does all the
> other work in the background given multiple java implementations. However, with
> galternatives, there are many pieces (related to java) that can be selected
> alternatively, 'java', 'javac' 'jre_1.4.2', etc.

Yes, system-switch-java is intended to allow an administrator to easily select
the default Java toolset, which includes all relevant alternatives for the
selected Java vendor/version combination.  I'll recommend that administrators
wanting finer-grained control over these alternatives should use galternatives.

the url is supposed to point at the upstream project.  if there is not one 
then you need to create one. 

(In reply to comment #11)
> the url is supposed to point at the upstream project.  if there is not one 
> then you need to create one.

I think this package is specific enough to Fedora that it doesn't warrant a
separate upstream project.  But since two people have mentioned this, what I'll
do is upload the release tarballs someplace convenient, like:

ftp://sources.redhat.com/pub/rhug/

Package built in devel.  Closing.

I created a very similar tool that I've been successfully using for about a year
now but only recently found time to put it on sourceforge. Just thought you
might want to check out that tool as well:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/javaselector

There's also a spec file, source rpm and binary rpm for FC2, 4 & 6.