Bug 520808
| Summary: | Review Request: slf4j - Simple Logging Facade for Java | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Product: | [Fedora] Fedora | Reporter: | Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako> |
| Component: | Package Review | Assignee: | Andrew Overholt <overholt> |
| Status: | CLOSED NEXTRELEASE | QA Contact: | Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa> |
| Severity: | medium | Docs Contact: | |
| Priority: | medium | ||
| Version: | rawhide | CC: | fedora-package-review, notting, orion, overholt |
| Target Milestone: | --- | Flags: | overholt:
fedora-review+
|
| Target Release: | --- | ||
| Hardware: | All | ||
| OS: | Linux | ||
| Whiteboard: | |||
| Fixed In Version: | Doc Type: | Bug Fix | |
| Doc Text: | Story Points: | --- | |
| Clone Of: | Environment: | ||
| Last Closed: | 2009-09-04 13:46:29 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: | 486360 | ||
|
Description
Alexander Kurtakov
2009-09-02 13:57:42 UTC
- package builds and installs fine on x86
X please make the description for the javadoc package "API documentation for %{name}"
X many of the lines are > 80 characters; please fix
X I think we need some Requires on java and jpackage-utils
- licensing good (some files are missing license headers but I'm willing to accept [1]. we should perhaps press to get these added in git master)
- rpmlint clean (except ignorable maven thing):
$ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/SRPMS/slf4j-1.5.8-2.fc11.src.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/slf4j-1.5.8-2.fc11.noarch.rpm
slf4j.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/slf4j
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
$ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/slf4j-javadoc-1.5.8-2.fc11.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
$ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/slf4j-manual-1.5.8-2.fc11.noarch.rpm
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
- macros and clean sections present and fine
- sources match upstream (md5sum)
X please move to (-,root,root,-) for the %files %defattrs
[1]
http://marc.info/?l=slf4j-user&m=119773193423413&w=2
(In reply to comment #1) > - package builds and installs fine on x86 > X please make the description for the javadoc package "API documentation for > %{name}" Done. > X many of the lines are > 80 characters; please fix Done wherever possible > X I think we need some Requires on java and jpackage-utils Done > - licensing good (some files are missing license headers but I'm willing to > accept [1]. we should perhaps press to get these added in git master) > - rpmlint clean (except ignorable maven thing): > > $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/SRPMS/slf4j-1.5.8-2.fc11.src.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/slf4j-1.5.8-2.fc11.noarch.rpm > slf4j.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/slf4j > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > $ rpmlint > /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/slf4j-javadoc-1.5.8-2.fc11.noarch.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > $ rpmlint > /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/slf4j-manual-1.5.8-2.fc11.noarch.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > - macros and clean sections present and fine > - sources match upstream (md5sum) > X please move to (-,root,root,-) for the %files %defattrs Done > > [1] > http://marc.info/?l=slf4j-user&m=119773193423413&w=2 New sources: Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/slf4j.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/slf4j-1.5.8-2.fc11.src.rpm (In reply to comment #1) > - package builds and installs fine on x86 > X please make the description for the javadoc package "API documentation for > %{name}" Done. > X many of the lines are > 80 characters; please fix Done wherever possible > X I think we need some Requires on java and jpackage-utils Done > - licensing good (some files are missing license headers but I'm willing to > accept [1]. we should perhaps press to get these added in git master) > - rpmlint clean (except ignorable maven thing): > > $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/SRPMS/slf4j-1.5.8-2.fc11.src.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/slf4j-1.5.8-2.fc11.noarch.rpm > slf4j.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/slf4j > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > $ rpmlint > /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/slf4j-javadoc-1.5.8-2.fc11.noarch.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > $ rpmlint > /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/slf4j-manual-1.5.8-2.fc11.noarch.rpm > 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. > > - macros and clean sections present and fine > - sources match upstream (md5sum) > X please move to (-,root,root,-) for the %files %defattrs Done > > [1] > http://marc.info/?l=slf4j-user&m=119773193423413&w=2 New sources: Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/slf4j.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/slf4j-1.5.8-3.fc11.src.rpm Thanks. There are still some lines that could be shortened (104-108, 115-118, 120, 167. Otherwise, we're good to go. (In reply to comment #4) > Thanks. There are still some lines that could be shortened (104-108, 115-118, > 120, 167. Otherwise, we're good to go. Done New sources: Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/slf4j.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/slf4j-1.5.8-4.fc11.src.rpm 104-112 could still be shortened but now we're just getting silly :) Fix if you'd like once it's in CVS. Approved. New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: slf4j Short Description: Simple Logging Facade for Java Owners: akurtakov Branches: InitialCC: CVS Done Build in rawhide. Any reason not to build this for F-11? (In reply to comment #10) > Any reason not to build this for F-11? It requires maven >= that which is in F-11. A back-port of all the maven packages and dependencies would be a lot of work. Package Change Request ====================== Package Name: slf4j New Branches: el5 el6 Owners: shughes Have you asked the existing Fedora maintainers if they would like to maintain this package in EPEL? Yes, He asked me and I can't dedicate any time to maintain it in EPEL. |