Bug 591947

Notes about this package:
- It requires maven-plugin-testing in the dist-f14-maven221 tag.

Hi Alexander, 

I found that many -javadoc packages don't create a symbolic link from %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} to %{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Java package guideline also don't mention that, are they all need fixing?

(In reply to comment #2)
> Hi Alexander, 
> 
> I found that many -javadoc packages don't create a symbolic link from
> %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} to %{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Java package
> guideline also don't mention that, are they all need fixing?    

Having unversioned javadoc directory is good to have for some commonly used packages like apache-commons-io (a number of developers should be using this javadocs). But there is no point having things like that for packages like the maven-jar-plugin. Virtually noone except a few maven developers will be reading that so we are not causing any inconvenience.

For me this should be up to the packager.

Successful koji build in dist-f14-maven221 tag:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2187891

I have seen the following rpmlint warnings on previous reviews of similar plugins and know they are ignorable.  Source0 tarball origin is explained and non-conffile warning is extraneous.

results of rpmlint:

bash $ rpmlint maven-jar-plugin.spec
maven-jar-plugin.spec: W: invalid-url Source0: maven-jar-plugin-2.3.tar.xz
0 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.

bash $ rpmlint maven-jar-plugin-2.3-1.fc14.noarch.rpm
maven-jar-plugin.noarch: W: no-documentation
maven-jar-plugin.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven-jar-plugin
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings.

bash $ rpmlint maven-jar-plugin-javadoc-2.3-1.fc14.noarch.rpm 
1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.

Package approved.

New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: maven-jar-plugin
Short Description: Maven JAR Plugin
Owners: akurtakov
Branches: 
InitialCC:

(In reply to comment #3)
> (In reply to comment #2)
> > Hi Alexander, 
> > 
> > I found that many -javadoc packages don't create a symbolic link from
> > %{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version} to %{_javadocdir}/%{name}. Java package
> > guideline also don't mention that, are they all need fixing?    
> Having unversioned javadoc directory is good to have for some commonly used
> packages like apache-commons-io (a number of developers should be using this
> javadocs). But there is no point having things like that for packages like the
> maven-jar-plugin. Virtually noone except a few maven developers will be reading
> that so we are not causing any inconvenience.
> For me this should be up to the packager.    

Thanks for clarification, so now we have three places for -javadoc subpackage? 
1.
%files javadoc
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}

2.
%files javadoc
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}-%{version}

e.g. ant
3.
%files javadoc
%defattr(-,root,root,-)
%{_javadocdir}/%{name}

e.g.jgrapht and Specfile Template in guideline
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java


Will it be better to simply install all javadoc to  %{_javadocdir}/%{name} as the java packaging guideline?


There's  also a talk in KDE-SIG meeting about which place is better for html documentions recently.

See http://meetbot.fedoraproject.org/fedora-meeting/2010-05-11/kde-sig.2010-05-11-14.02.log.html

CVS Done

Build in koji.

http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2194999