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=596125 --- Comment #3 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurt...@redhat.com> 2010-05-26 09:41:32 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the > review. > maven-skins.src: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-skins-5.tar.xz > maven-skins.noarch: W: no-documentation > maven-skins.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven-skins > 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 3 warnings. > > It might be nice to actually describe why it's needed to use > repository. I assume it's because it's not packaged separately from maven. > That > is also why there is no separate documentation. Am I correct? Maven projects rarely have any documentation suitable for inclusion in RPM as a %doc. Most projects are generating their documentation from a intermediate representation. See http://maven.apache.org/doxia/references/index.html for details. Sources are fetched from svn because maven projects are not producing source tarballs. > > OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . > OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format > %{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption. . > OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . > OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the > Licensing Guidelines . > OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. > OK: The spec file must be written in American English. > OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. > OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as > provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > OK(koji): The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on > at least one primary architecture. > OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create > a > directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create > that > directory. > OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's > %files listings. > OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with > executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a > %defattr(...) line. > OK: Each package must consistently use macros. > OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. > OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other > packages. > The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed should own > the > files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This means, for > example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with any of the > files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you feel that > you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another package owns, > then please present that at package review time. > OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8. > > > Other: > you have: > > install -pm 644 maven-application-skin/pom.xml \ > > %{buildroot}%{_mavenpomdir}/JPP.%{name}-maven-application-skin.pom > > and then > > %add_to_maven_depmap org.apache.maven.skins maven-application-skin > > %{version} JPP/maven-skins maven-application-skin > > Is this going to work? You install for example > /usr/share/maven2/poms/JPP.maven-skins-maven-application-skin.pom > and then tell maven that it's JPP/maven-skins groupID and > maven-application-skin artifactId. Shouldn't last argument to > add_to_maven_depmap be: %{name}-maven-application-skin ? Or alternatively > change install and leave add_to_maven_depmap be? Yes this is working perfectly well. The JPP.(dot) notation tells maven to look for a subdirectory and so is %add_to_maven_depmap e.g. %add_to_maven_depmap org.apache.maven.skins maven-application-skin %{version} JPP/maven-skins maven-application-skin will make it look for /usr/share/java/maven-skins/maven-application-skin.jar while what you suggested %add_to_maven_depmap org.apache.maven.skins maven-application-skin %{version} JPP/maven-skins %{name}-maven-application-skin will make it look for /usr/share/java/maven-skins/maven-skins-maven-application-skin.jar > > So please just explain this thing and why you used SVN and I can approve this > package, because otherwise it's OK. P.S. Wherever I've written maven projects I ment projects that are part of maven.apache.org not every project that is using maven as a build system. -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
