Bug 519051
| Summary: | Review Request: maven2-plugin-shade - Maven Shade Plugin | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Andrew Overholt <overholt> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Jeff Johnston <jjohnstn> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | akurtako, fedora-package-review, jjohnstn, notting |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | jjohnstn:
fedora-review+
j: fedora-cvs+ |
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-09-01 06:27:22 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: | |||
|
Description
Andrew Overholt
2009-08-24 18:05:08 UTC
Review Comments:
1. There is a BSD license at the top of the spec. Should the licensing
add "and BSD"?
2. The description for the javadoc sub-package should be:
This package contains the API documentation for %{name}.
The template has its group as Development/Documentation, not Documentation.
3. The Java packaging guidelines state that there should be:
Requires: jpackage-utils
4. The following sections from the maven template of the Java
guidelines are missing.
%post
%update_maven_depmap
%postun
%update_maven_depmap
(In reply to comment #1) > 1. There is a BSD license at the top of the spec. Should the licensing > add "and BSD"? The License field is for the contents of the package, not the .spec. > 2. The description for the javadoc sub-package should be: > > This package contains the API documentation for %{name}. Done. > The template has its group as Development/Documentation, not Documentation. That makes rpmlint whine. > 3. The Java packaging guidelines state that there should be: > > Requires: jpackage-utils Fixed. > 4. The following sections from the maven template of the Java > guidelines are missing. > > %post > %update_maven_depmap > > %postun > %update_maven_depmap Oops :) Fixed. http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/maven2-plugin-shade.spec http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/maven2-plugin-shade-1.0-6.fc11.src.rpm P.S. I think you're supposed to set the fedora-review flag to '?' while you're reviewing it. Thanks for addressing the comments. I have set the Fedora-review flag. Package approval waiting on build of package. Now that maven2 is built in rawhide, you can probably just: yum --enablerepo=rawhide update maven2 and then build this package. Here's the latest .spec and .src.rpm: http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/maven2-plugin-shade.spec http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/maven2-plugin-shade-1.0-7.fc11.src.rpm Here's a fixed maven2: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=130018 It isn't yet in the yum repos, but manually downloading the RPMs and then using yum localinstall should work. Build successful. Approved. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: maven2-plugin-shade Short Description: Maven Shade Plugin Owners: overholt, akurtakov Branches: InitialCC: CVS done. Build in rawhide. http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/buildinfo?buildID=130078 |