Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xtvd.spec SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xtvd-2.0.1-0.1.fc10.src.rpm Description(lib): A client java library for easy access to the tv data from schedulesdirect.org. Description(gui): This client is only a small demonstration for the usage of the library. It's an enhanced verison of the old XTVD WEBSERVICE CLIENT by Tribune Media Services, Inc. This is a dependency needed for tvbrowser, for which a review request exists already. rpmlint on spec, srpm and noarch-rpms finishes checking without any warnings or errors. I'd still need a sponsor.
Please have a close look at the license text. I didn't really know what to make of it.
Successfully created a mock-(re)build of this version of this pkg.
(Removing NEEDSPONSOR)
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xtvd-2.0.1-1.fc10.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xtvd.spec New version including much of the experience I got when my jcalendar pkg was reviewed.
Before I can review this package: - For svn based tarball, please follow * For creating source tarball https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Using_Revision_Control * For versioning https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PreReleasePackages https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#SnapshotPackages For this package the EVR should be 2.0.1-0.2.svn35%{?dist} (as 2.0.1 does not seem to be released yet) - As far as I checked the codes, the license tag should be "GPL+" (no version specified) - Can this package be built by using maven? https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#maven Note that I am not familiar with maven. - For %setup, would you modify your tarball so that the tarball expands codes under the directory of which the name contains %{name}? - Would you explain why %{name} binary rpm itself is not created? - Please consider to use build-classpath.
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xtvd-2.0.1-2.fc11.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xtvd.spec Actually, I don't think the pre-release/snapshot guidelines or the ones for using revision control apply here. 2.0.1 is an official release (actually the same as 2.0(.0) but with additional license text in the lib part as I requested from upstream). Because of only this little change no tarball was created by upstream. But the used tarball is generated by upstream's system and consists of the release tag (not a certain revision or trunk or something). The license was changed. Yes, it could be built with maven. Actually, maven needs artifacts that are not provided in Fedora. And packaging other java software that could be built using maven also shows that maven is Fedora lacks lots of important artifacts and that maven is really outdated. And I really don't understand maven enough to change any of this. Yes, I could modify the tarball but isn't it part of the guidelines that the upstream's distribution shouldn't be modified unless there's some problems with the contents? Well, xtvd-lib and xtvd-gui are upstream's naming, which should be preserved according to the guidelines. The common name (and the name of upstream's distribution) is xtvd. That's why. build-classpath is now being used. Correct me if I'm wrong in any point :)
(In reply to comment #6) > 2.0.1 is an official release (actually the same as 2.0(.0) but with additional > license text in the lib part as I requested from upstream). Because of only > this little change no tarball was created by upstream. But the used tarball is > generated by upstream's system and consists of the release tag (not a certain > revision or trunk or something). - But as the tarball is created from svn system, please follow revision control tarball creation method (Using "Download GNU tarball" on SCM viewvc is not preferred) If this is after 2.0.1 release, you can follow https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Post-Release_packages > Yes, I could modify the tarball but isn't it part of the guidelines that the > upstream's distribution shouldn't be modified unless there's some problems with > the contents? - Please see above (i.e. please create tarball by using "svn co")
Spec URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xtvd-2.0.1-2.fc11.src.rpm SRPM URL: http://red.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/xtvd.spec The source archive is now created manually after a check out with svn. Nothing else changed. The naming is still the same - this is not before or after the 2.0.1 release, this _is_ the 2.0.1 release. With the exception that no archive is provided via download.sf.net but only a release tag on the svn was created (because only that license text was added as I requested). The previous release was 2.0 and the next will probably be 2.1 (if there will be a next version at all). I hope we can agree on this. :)
Sorry for not responding.. I will check this package tomorrow or so.
Well, - Divide a bit long %changelog line into two or so. ------------------------------------------------------------- This package (xtvd) is APPROVED by mtasaka -------------------------------------------------------------
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: xtvd Short Description: A client java library for easy access to the tv data from schedulesdirect.org Owners: red Branches: F-9 F-10 InitialCC:
cvs done.
Please rebuild this package on koji and for F-10/9 submit requests to push the rebuilt packages into repositories.
Now closing, thank you.
xtvd-2.0.1-2.fc9 has been pushed to the Fedora 9 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
xtvd-2.0.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.