[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 --- Comment #12 from Fedora Update System --- rsyntaxtextarea-2.5.8-2.fc24 has been pushed to the Fedora 24 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks|652183 (FE-JAVASIG) | Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 Fedora Update System changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |CLOSED Resolution|--- |ERRATA Last Closed||2016-09-24 11:14:53 --- Comment #11 from Fedora Update System --- rsyntaxtextarea-2.5.8-2.fc25 has been pushed to the Fedora 25 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report. -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-le...@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 --- Comment #10 from Jon Ciesla --- Package request has been approved: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/package/rpms/rsyntaxtextarea -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Flags|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #9 from gil cattaneo --- Approved have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1366836 ? -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 --- Comment #8 from Dennis Chen --- Here's an updated SPEC:https://src-code.simons-rock.edu/~dchen15/data/rsyntaxtextarea.spec and SRPM:https://src-code.simons-rock.edu/~dchen15/data/rsyntaxtextarea-2.5.8-2.fc24.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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 --- Comment #7 from gil cattaneo --- (In reply to Dennis Chen from comment #6) > The package requires the generated java code to be modified. Two methods > need to be deleted, and on initialization needs to be removed. I'm not sure > what easy way there is to do this. Use old jflex release Remain to fix this issues: [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 --- Comment #6 from Dennis Chen --- The package requires the generated java code to be modified. Two methods need to be deleted, and on initialization needs to be removed. I'm not sure what easy way there is to do this. -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 --- Comment #5 from gil cattaneo --- NON blocking issues: [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. [!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines Maybe you could regenerate java source code in ./src/main/java/org/fife/ui/rsyntaxtextarea/modes using jflex e.g. /usr/bin/jflex *.flex -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= 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.
[x]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 213 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/gil/1360587-rsyntaxtextarea/licensecheck.txt
All java code use this header:
* This library is distributed under a modified BSD license. See the included
* RSyntaxTextArea.License.txt file for details.
[!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
[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.
[x]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[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.
[x]: Requires correct, justified where necessary.
[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.
[-]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[!]: Package complies to the Packaging Guidelines
Maybe you could regenerate java source code in
./src/main/java/org/fife/ui/rsyntaxtextarea/modes
using jflex e.g. /usr/bin/jflex *.flex
[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 rpmlint messages (see attachment).
[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 %license.
[x]: Package requires other packages for directories it uses.
[x]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
is pulled in by maven-local
[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:
[-]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[-]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[x]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[-]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
rsyntaxtextarea-javadoc
[x]: Package functions as described.
[x]: Latest version is packaged.
[x]: Package does
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Assignee|nob...@fedoraproject.org|punto...@libero.it Flags||fedora-review? -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 --- Comment #3 from gil cattaneo --- have time for this https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1359244 ? -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added CC||punto...@libero.it --- Comment #2 from gil cattaneo --- Seem all ok, but you should add license macro also for the javadoc sub-package -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 gil cattaneo changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||652183 (FE-JAVASIG) Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=652183 [Bug 652183] Java SIG tracker bug -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587
--- Comment #1 from Dennis Chen ---
Package Review
==
Legend:
[x] = Pass, [!] = Fail, [-] = Not applicable, [?] = Not evaluated
[ ] = Manual review needed
= MUST items =
Generic:
[ ]: Package is licensed with an open-source compatible license and meets
other legal requirements as defined in the legal section of Packaging
Guidelines.
[ ]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
Note: Checking patched sources after %prep for licenses. Licenses
found: "Unknown or generated". 211 files have unknown license.
Detailed output of licensecheck in
/home/dchen15/1360587-rsyntaxtextarea/licensecheck.txt
[ ]: 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, /usr/share/licenses
[ ]: Package must own all directories that it creates.
Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/licenses,
/usr/share/maven-metadata
[ ]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
[ ]: Changelog in prescribed format.
[ ]: 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
[ ]: Package uses nothing in %doc for runtime.
[ ]: Package consistently uses macros (instead of hard-coded directory
names).
[ ]: Package is named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
[ ]: Package does not generate any conflict.
[ ]: 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.
[ ]: Spec file is legible and written in American English.
[ ]: Package contains systemd file(s) if in need.
[ ]: Package is not known to require an ExcludeArch tag.
[ ]: Large documentation must go in a -doc subpackage. Large could be size
(~1MB) or number of files.
Note: Documentation size is 10240 bytes in 1 files.
[ ]: 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: No rpmlint messages.
[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 %license.
[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]: Dist tag is present.
[x]: Package does not contain duplicates in %files.
[x]: Permissions on files are set properly.
[x]: Package use %makeinstall only when make install DESTDIR=... doesn't
work.
[x]: Package is named using only allowed ASCII characters.
[x]: Package does not use a name that already exists.
[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]: Packages must not store files under /srv, /opt or /usr/local
Java:
[x]: Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
[x]: Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
Note: Maven packages do not need to (Build)Require jpackage-utils. It
is pulled in by maven-local
[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:
[ ]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
when building with ant
[x]: Old add_to_maven_depmap macro is not being used
= SHOULD items =
Generic:
[ ]: If the source package does not include license text(s) as a separate
file from upstream, the packager SHOULD query upstream to include it.
[ ]: Final provides and requires are sane (see attachments).
[ ]: Fully versioned dependency in subpackages if applicable.
Note: No Requires: %{name}%{?_isa} = %{version}-%{release} in
rsyntaxtextarea-javadoc
[ ]: Package functions as described.
[ ]: Latest version is packaged.
[ ]: Package does not include license text files separate from upstream.
[ ]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
justified.
[ ]: Descript
[Bug 1360587] Review Request: rsyntaxtextarea - A syntax highlighting, code folding text editor for Java Swing applications
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1360587 Dennis Chen changed: What|Removed |Added Blocks||1316315 Referenced Bugs: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1316315 [Bug 1316315] arduino-1.6.10 is available -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
