Bug 178142
Summary: | Review Request: jakarta-commons-cli - Jakarta Commons CLI | ||
---|---|---|---|
Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Anthony Green <green> |
Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Chris Chabot <chabotc> |
Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Package Reviews List <fedora-package-review> |
Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
Priority: | medium | ||
Version: | rawhide | CC: | chabotc, rob.myers |
Target Milestone: | --- | Keywords: | Reopened |
Target Release: | --- | Flags: | kevin:
fedora-cvs+
|
Hardware: | All | ||
OS: | Linux | ||
Whiteboard: | |||
Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
Last Closed: | 2006-08-29 06:14:11 UTC | Type: | --- |
Regression: | --- | Mount Type: | --- |
Documentation: | --- | CRM: | |
Verified Versions: | Category: | --- | |
oVirt Team: | --- | RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host: | |
Cloudforms Team: | --- | Target Upstream Version: | |
Embargoed: | |||
Bug Depends On: | |||
Bug Blocks: | 163779 |
Description
Anthony Green
2006-01-18 00:36:33 UTC
If no one else picks this up before tomorrow morning i'll take it on then Can't wait for seeing Azureus btw :-) Bouncy castle following soon? *** Bug 178141 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** (In reply to comment #1) > If no one else picks this up before tomorrow morning i'll take it on then Thanks. > Can't wait for seeing Azureus btw :-) Bouncy castle following soon? I'm going to see if we can get away with just the GNU Crypto provider, instead of importing all of bouncycastle. I see no one else picked this up in the meantime; Changing bug to FE-REVIEW Looking at the spec file its still confusing to find the %define's, but i know its to keep it close to the JPackage one, so thats ok :-) Groups and everything look good from the get-go too Summary: Its usually not needed to include the %{name} in it, rpm tools (or even rpm -q) would display this name already before the summary, i think better would be just: "Command Line Interface for Java" It builds and mock builds cleanly (fc-devel-i386) rpmlint output is quiet. It does have some files listed twice, rpmbuild says: warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/gcj/jakarta-commons-cli warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/gcj/jakarta-commons-cli/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0.jar.db warning: File listed twice: /usr/lib/gcj/jakarta-commons-cli/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0.jar.so It would be safe to make your files section: %files %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) %doc LICENSE.txt README.txt %{_javadir}/* %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} That way it automaticly owns the directory, and picks up all the files inside of it. File permissions look good to me, so no need for %attr magic Formal review list: MUST review items: - Builds cleanly on FC5 devel. - rpmlint has no output / complaints - Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum) - Package name meets guidelines - spec file name is in %{name}.spec format - Licence (Apache) is fedora extra's compatible & is included in spec - Spec file is in (american) english - Does not list buildrequires that are excepted in the package guidelines - All build dependencies are listed - No need for ldconfig - All files have proper permissions - Package is not relocatable - ** Error: duplicate files in %files section - No missing files in %files section - Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines - No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation - No -devel package needed - ** Directory-ownerships is ok, but needs rework to fix duplicate files - Not a gui app so no desktop file handling needed Should items: - Includes upstream licence file (COPYING) - No insane scriplets, or scriplets at all - No unnescesarry requires - Mock builds cleanly If you could fix the 2 above mentioned issues (summary & %files section) i think we'll be done with this in no time, nice to see your getting the hang of this packaging thing :-) (In reply to comment #4) > I see no one else picked this up in the meantime; Changing bug to FE-REVIEW Thanks! Updated files here: Spec Name or Url: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/jakarta-commons-cli.spec SRPM Name or Url: http://people.redhat.com/green/FE/devel/jakarta-commons-cli-1.0-6jpp_5.src.rpm Note that I found a copy of the SRPM recently removed from development core and integrated the changelog into this one, which is why the release jumped from 1 to 5. There was really only one change in that SRPM, which was to remove the Vendor and Distributor tags. > Summary: Its usually not needed to include the %{name} in it, rpm tools (or even > rpm -q) would display this name already before the summary, i think better would > be just: > "Command Line Interface for Java" Done. > It would be safe to make your files section: Done. Thanks! AG Changes look great, here's the completed formal review list: MUST review items: - Builds cleanly on FC5 devel. - rpmlint has no output - Source included matches upsteam source (md5sum) - Package name meets guidelines - spec file name is in %{name}.spec format - Licence (Apache Software Licence) is fedora extra's compatible & is included in spec - Spec file is in (american) english - Does not list buildrequires that are excepted in the package guidelines - All build dependencies are listed - No need for ldconfig - All files have proper permissions - Package is not relocatable - No duplicate files in %files section anymore - No missing files in %files section - Has a proper %clean section with rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT - Uses macro's described in PackagingGuidelines - No entries in %doc that are required for standard program operation - No -devel package needed - Directory-ownerships is ok now - Not a gui app so no desktop file handling needed Should items: - Includes upstream licence file (COPYING) - No insane scriplets, or scriplets at all - No unnescesarry requires - Mock builds cleanly FE-APPROVED! Thanks. AG. Re-assigned bug to me Normalize summary field for easy parsing Package Change Request
======================
Package Name: jakarta-commons-cli
New Branches: EL-5
Updated EPEL Owners: rob.myers.edu
rob myers wrote:
> Hi Anthony-
>
> I'd like to have jakarta-commons-cli available in EPEL since checkstyle
> requires it. Are you interested in EPEL? If you are not interested in
> EPEL I would be willing to become a co-maintainer of the package for the
> purposes of EPEL support.
Please help yourself to co-maintainership. That would be great. Do I
have to do anything to make that happen?
Thanks!
AG
cvs done. |