[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 Ismael Olea changed: What|Removed |Added Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: gnudiff |java-gnudiff| --- Comment #2 from Ismael Olea --- a better one: http://olea.org/tmp/gnudiff.spec http://copr-be.cloud.fedoraproject.org/results/olea/OmegaT/fedora-rawhide-i386/gnudiff-1.15-3.olea/gnudiff-1.15-3.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC||mat.bo...@redhat.com Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|mat.bo...@redhat.com Flags||fedora-review? --- Comment #3 from Mat Booth --- Some things from a quick glance at the specfile... You can make maven install the javadocs by passing -J to mvn_install. For example: %mvn_install -J path/to/javadocs And then in the files section, you can have: %files javadoc -f .mfiles-javadoc Also there is no need for the "%defattr(-,root,root,-)" line. This should make your spec file a bit simpler :-) I will do a formal review once you fix these things. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 --- Comment #4 from Mat Booth --- Also, the "Group:" tag is no longer necessary. -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879
gil cattaneo changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||punto...@libero.it
--- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo ---
there are also unneeded BR:
BuildRequires: java-devel >= 1:1.6.0
BuildRequires: maven-local
you can use only
BuildRequires: javapackages-tools
or better
BuildRequires: javapackages-local
unnecessary Requires (XMvn handled by XMvn - javapackages-*)
Requires: java-headless >= 1:1.6.0
Requires: javapackages-tools
also for sub package javadoc
Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
Requires: javapackages-tools
this should be a bug in XMvn, please contact mizde...@redhat.com for more info
%dir /usr/share/maven-poms/%{name}/
please use %dir %{_javadir}/%{name}/ instead of %dir /usr/share/java/%{name}/
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879
--- Comment #6 from Ismael Olea ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> there are also unneeded BR:
> BuildRequires: java-devel >= 1:1.6.0
> BuildRequires: maven-local
> you can use only
> BuildRequires: javapackages-tools
> or better
> BuildRequires: javapackages-local
>
> unnecessary Requires (XMvn handled by XMvn - javapackages-*)
> Requires: java-headless >= 1:1.6.0
> Requires: javapackages-tools
> also for sub package javadoc
> Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> Requires: javapackages-tools
Reading the guidelines[1] I understand they should be exactly as I wrote :-m
What am I doing wrong?
[1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 --- Comment #7 from Ismael Olea --- (In reply to Mat Booth from comment #3) > I will do a formal review once you fix these things. Done: http://olea.org/tmp/gnudiff.spec http://olea.org/tmp/gnudiff-1.15-4.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879
--- Comment #8 from Mat Booth ---
(In reply to Ismael Olea from comment #6)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #5)
> > there are also unneeded BR:
> > BuildRequires: java-devel >= 1:1.6.0
> > BuildRequires: maven-local
> > you can use only
> > BuildRequires: javapackages-tools
> > or better
> > BuildRequires: javapackages-local
> >
> > unnecessary Requires (XMvn handled by XMvn - javapackages-*)
> > Requires: java-headless >= 1:1.6.0
> > Requires: javapackages-tools
> > also for sub package javadoc
> > Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}
> > Requires: javapackages-tools
>
> Reading the guidelines[1] I understand they should be exactly as I wrote :-m
>
> What am I doing wrong?
>
> [1] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#BuildRequires_and_Requires
The reason is that this package is not actually built with maven, so there is
no need to BR the full maven stack. Since you build with javac, you may BR:
javapackages-local instead. If you BR: javapackages-local that will also pull
in java-devel, so you may choose to omit your BR on that too if you wish.
Also the Javadoc subpackage shouldn’t depend on its base package and vice
versa. Please remove "Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release}" -- the
rationale for that is that documentation should be readable without installing
half the java stack. ( See
https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/#_javadoc_packages )
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
___
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 --- Comment #9 from Ismael Olea --- (In reply to Mat Booth from comment #8) Ok. Fixed: http://olea.org/tmp/gnudiff.spec http://olea.org/tmp/gnudiff-1.15-5.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879
--- Comment #10 from Mat Booth ---
See below for the formal review. There are only two remaining minor problems
(see the note below about the junit requirement and macro usage) and one
question (see my licensing note below) for my curiosity only :-)
Once these items are addressed, I would be happy to approve this package.
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
= MUST items =
Generic:
[x]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
NOTE: Using plain GPL is an unusual choice for java packages, this implies that
all packages that require this one are also GPL licenced, is this true?
[x]: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s)
in its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s)
for the package is included in %doc.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. No licenses
found. Please check the source files for licenses manually.
[-]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[-]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
Note: No known owner of /usr/share/maven-metadata
[-]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-metadata
NOTE: The above directory should be owned by another package, it is not a
problem in this package.
[x]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[x]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[x]: Sources contain only permissible code or content.
[-]: Package contains desktop file if it is a GUI application.
[-]: Development files must be in a -devel package
[x]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[!]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory names).
FIXME: Use %{_datadir} instead of /usr/share in the %files section
[x]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[x]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[x]: Package obeys FHS, except libexecdir and /usr/target.
[-]: If the package is a rename of another package, proper Obsoletes and
Provides are present.
[!]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
FIXME: I'm not sure it's necessary to require junit at runtime. This should
probably have "test" scope in the pom.xml.
[x]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[-]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[x]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[x]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
[x]: Package successfully compiles and builds into binary rpms on at least one
supported primary architecture.
[x]: Package installs properly.
[x]: Rpmlint is run on all rpms the build produces.
NOTE: There are some warnings, but they are benign false-positives for
spellings of technical terms, safe to ignore.
[x]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
[x]: All build dependencies are listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of Packaging Guidelines.
[x]: Package uses either %{buildroot} or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT
[x]: Package does not run rm -rf %{buildroot} (or $RPM_BUILD_ROOT) at the
beginning of %install.
[x]: Macros in Summary, %description expandable at SRPM build time.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[-]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install' ' DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package do not use a name that already exist
[x]: Package is not relocatable.
[x]: Sources used to build the package match the upstream source, as provided
in the spec URL.
[x]: Spec file name must match the spec package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec.
[x]: File names are valid UTF-8.
[x]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 0 bytes in 0 files.
[x]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Javadoc documentation files are generated and included in -javadoc
subpackage
[x]: Javadoc subpackages should not have Requires: jpackage-utils
[x]: Javadocs are placed in %{_javadocdir}/%{name} (no -%{version} symlink)
Maven:
[x]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including depmaps) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
[x]: Packages DO NOT have Requires(post) and Requires(postun) on jpackage-
utils for %update_maven_depmap macro
[x]: Package DOES NOT use %update_maven_depmap in %post/%postun
[x]: Packages use %{_mavenpomd
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 --- Comment #11 from Ismael Olea --- (In reply to Mat Booth from comment #10) > See below for the formal review. There are only two remaining minor problems > (see the note below about the junit requirement and macro usage) and one > question (see my licensing note below) for my curiosity only :-) Good. About the licensing thing, the author wrote at http://bmsi.com/java/#diff: «Many people have asked me to change the license to LGPL. My port is based on GNU Diff, which is GPL. Until someone convinces me otherwise, I don't believe that I have the right to change the license. I have corresponded with the copyright holders of GNU Diff, and they are unwilling to change the license. Their position is that the GPL helps force companies to GPL more code in order to use existing GPL code.» The modifications are done: http://olea.org/tmp/gnudiff.spec http://olea.org/tmp/gnudiff-1.15-6.fc22.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 Mat Booth changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #12 from Mat Booth --- (In reply to Ismael Olea from comment #11) > > The modifications are done: > > http://olea.org/tmp/gnudiff.spec > http://olea.org/tmp/gnudiff-1.15-6.fc22.src.rpm Super, thanks. APPROVED -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 Ismael Olea changed: What|Removed |Added Flags||fedora-cvs- --- Comment #13 from Ismael Olea --- New Package SCM Request === Package Name: gnudiff Short Description: GNU Diff for Java Upstream URL: http://bmsi.com/java/#diff Owners: olea Branches: f21 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 Ismael Olea changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs- |fedora-cvs? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 --- Comment #14 from Jon Ciesla --- Git done (by process-git-requests). -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 Jon Ciesla changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+ -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
[Bug 1127879] Review Request: gnudiff
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1127879 Ismael Olea changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution|--- |NEXTRELEASE Last Closed||2014-08-21 11:52:52 -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component ___ package-review mailing list package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review
