Spec URL: http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/svnkit/svnkit.spec SRPM URL: http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/svnkit/svnkit-1.1.1-1.src.rpm Description: SVNKit is a pure Java Subversion client library. You would like to use SVNKit when you need to access or modify Subversion repository from your Java application, be it a standalone program, plugin or web application. Being a pure Java program, SVNKit doesn't need any additional configuration or native binaries to work on any OS that runs Java. This library is a renamed version of the javasvn package I mantain, I plan to mark it as dead when all dependencies all resolved (currently only eclipse-subclipse)
If this package replaces an differently named one, you should probably follow the steps outlined here: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-3cfc1ea19d28975faad9d56f70a6ae55661d3c3d
sorry for the long delay, i was only updating critical updates of my packages recently... Updated package http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/svnkit/svnkit.spec http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/svnkit/svnkit-1.1.2-1.src.rpm
Can somebody help to finish this review... TIA
Can you fix or explain the following? # rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/svnkit-1.1.2-1.i386.rpm W: svnkit wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/svnkit-1.1.2/README.txt W: svnkit invalid-license TMate License W: svnkit obsolete-not-provided javasvn
(In reply to comment #4) > Can you fix or explain the following? > > # rpmlint /usr/src/redhat/RPMS/i386/svnkit-1.1.2-1.i386.rpm > W: svnkit wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/svnkit-1.1.2/README.txt I knew i would miss something :-( > W: svnkit invalid-license TMate License svnkit is a rename of javasvn, already on the repository, Bug #191015, because it is just a BSD license with an added clause about the availiablity of the source code http://svnkit.com/license.html > W: svnkit obsolete-not-provided javasvn svnkit replaces javasvn, but it is not 100% compatible with javasvn because jar filenames are not equals (I still can make a few symlinks but there is not guarantee the internal classes will be renamed too), quoting the guidelines "If a package supersedes/replaces an existing package without being a compatible enough replacement as defined in above, use only the Obsoletes from above." The only package using javasvn in the Fedora repository is eclipse-subversion, that i am eager to update
Just setting the fedora-review flag so this doesn't show up in the unreviewed ticket list.
=========================== Re-starting Review Process: =========================== ***** Items marked with an X need to be fixed. ***** OK - package is named appropriately - match upstream tarball or project name - try to match previous incarnations in other distributions/packagers for consistency - specfile should be %{name}.spec - non-numeric characters should only be used in Release (ie. cvs or something) - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease - if case sensitivity is requested by upstream or you feel it should be not just lowercase, do so; otherwise, use all lower case for the name OK - is it legal for Fedora to distribute this? - OSI-approved OK - license field matches the actual license. OK - license is open source-compatible. - use acronyms for licences where common OK - specfile name matches %{name} OK - skim the summary and description for typos, etc. OK - correct buildroot - should be: %{_tmppath}/%{name}-%{version}-%{release}-root-%(%{__id_u} -n) OK - if %{?dist} is used, it should be in that form (note the ? and % locations) OK - keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? useless?) OK - packages meets FHS (http://www.pathname.com/fhs/) OK - changelog should be in one of these formats: * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. * Fri Jun 23 2006 Jesse Keating <jkeating> - 0.6-4 - And fix the link syntax. OK - Packager tag should not be used OK - Vendor tag should not be used OK - Distribution tag should not be used OK - use License and not Copyright OK - Summary tag should not end in a period OK - post and postun javadoc should not exist OK - if possible, replace PreReq with Requires(pre) and/or Requires(post) OK - specfile is legible - this is largely subjective; use your judgement OK - package successfully compiles and builds on at least x86 X - BuildRequires are proper - builds in mock will flush out problems here - the following packages don't need to be listed in BuildRequires: bash bzip2 X - coreutils --> This BR can be deleted. cpio diffutils fedora-release (and/or redhat-release) gcc gcc-c++ gzip make patch perl redhat-rpm-config rpm-build sed tar unzip which OK - summary should be a short and concise description of the package X - description expands upon summary (don't include installation instructions) --> Description is very vague for javadoc. If this can be expanded, that would be great. If not, I don't think it's a big deal. OK - make sure lines are <= 80 characters OK - specfile written in American English OK - make a -doc sub-package if necessary - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#head-9bbfa57478f0460c6160947a6bf795249488182b OK - packages including libraries should exclude static libraries if possible OK - don't use rpath OK - config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) OK - GUI apps should contain .desktop files Ok - should the package contain a -devel sub-package? OK use macros appropriately and consistently - ie. %{buildroot} and %{optflags} vs. $RPM_BUILD_ROOT and $RPM_OPT_FLAGS OK - don't use %makeinstall OK - locale data handling correct (find_lang) - if translations included, add BR: gettext and use %find_lang %{name} at the end of %install OK - consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps OK - split Requires(pre,post) into two separate lines OK - package should probably not be relocatable OK - package contains code - see http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#CodeVsContent - in general, there should be no offensive content OK - package should own all directories and files OK - there should be no %files duplicates OK - file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present OK - if it is a web apps, it should be in /usr/share/%{name} and *not* /var/www OK - %clean should be present OK - %doc files should not affect runtime OK - add gcj support if %BuildArch nnoarch OK - verify the final provides and requires of the binary RPMs Ok - rpmlint on <this package>.srpm gives no output - justify warnings if you think they shouldn't be there --> warning can be ignored. X - run rpmlint on the binary RPMs --> rpmlint svnkit-1.1.2-1.fc7.i386.rpm Only this warning needs to be fixed: svnkit wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/svnkit-1.1.2/README.txt, the others I think can be ignored. --> rpmlint svnkit-debuginfo-1.1.2-1.fc7.i386.rpm This warning can be ignored. --> rpmlint svnkit-javadoc-1.1.2-1.fc7.i386.rpm There are a bunch of svnkit-javadoc wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding warnings that I think need to be fixed. OK - license text included in package and marked with %doc --> license text is not included in this package. X verify source and patches (md5sum matches upstream, know what the patches do) - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on how to generate the the source drop; ie. # svn export blah/tag blah # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah --> I'm getting different md5sums. Could you kindly just double check this as well. OK - package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc --> See note above. OK - package should build on i386 OK - package should build on mock
(In reply to comment #7) > --> I'm getting different md5sums. Could you kindly just double check this > as well. I downloaded the package again and the md5sums match, maybe your download was corrupted or some website problem occurred at that time Updates at http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/svnkit/svnkit-1.1.2-2.fc7.src.rpm http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/svnkit/svnkit.spec
(In reply to comment #8) > I downloaded the package again and the md5sums match, maybe your download was > corrupted or some website problem occurred at that time You are right. Don't know what happened there. Sorry about that. Everything else looks good. Approved.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: svnkit Short Description: Pure Java Subversion client library Owners: robert Branches: FC-6 F-7 InitialCC:
CVS done.