Spec URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs.spec SRPM URL: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs-1.0-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: This project provides a convenient, compact, pre-packaged and comprehensively documented suite of command line option parsers for the use of Java programmers. Initially, parsing compatible with GNU-style 'getopt' is provided. rpmlint is silent, koji build is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1338557
- http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java states as minimum BR:s and Requires: BuildRequires: java-devel [>= specific_version] BuildRequires: jpackage-utils Requires: java >= specific_version Requires: jpackage-utils - You can probably drop BR: libgcj after adding the above. - Have a look at the spec file template for ant at http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#ant_2 - Remove any preexisting jar files in the %setup phase with find -name '*.jar' -o -name '*.class' -exec rm -f '{}' \; (this in order to make sure that everything is built from source). - When installing, use "-p" to preserve time stamps. - jar file must have same name as package: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Jar_file_naming (drop the symlinking and just install %{name}.jar in %_javadir) - Same goes with javadocdir, don't version it. - Use %defattr(-,root,root,-) for javadoc package as well. Once you have fixed these I will do the full review.
Also, you could add Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} to javadoc package so that it gets removed when the jargs package is removed.
(In reply to comment #1) > - jar file must have same name as package: > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Jar_file_naming > (drop the symlinking and just install %{name}.jar in %_javadir) > > - Same goes with javadocdir, don't version it. Ok for all other things, but why do you ask that? It seems that most java packages come versioned and symlinked (for javadoc as well). It is a jpackage guideline and there seems to be nothing opposing that in Fedora-java guidelines; look here: http://www.jpackage.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/src/jpackage-utils/doc/jpackage-1.5-policy.xhtml?revision=HEAD&root=jpackage#id2480655 Maybe because jargs 1.0 is mature since 2006 and there will hardly be a new release? Here are updated spec and srpm (with other fixes but without above, waiting for explanation): http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs.spec http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs-1.0-2.fc10.src.rpm As a side note, other packages originally coming from jpackage have Group: Development/Libraries/Java instead of Development/Libraries (ie the jakarta-commons-*.jar), but i used the last one to avoid an rpmlint warning. cheers (and thanks for your sponsorship!)
(In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #1) > > - jar file must have same name as package: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java#Jar_file_naming > > (drop the symlinking and just install %{name}.jar in %_javadir) > > > > - Same goes with javadocdir, don't version it. > > Ok for all other things, but why do you ask that? It seems that most java > packages come versioned and symlinked (for javadoc as well). It is a jpackage > guideline and there seems to be nothing opposing that in Fedora-java > guidelines; Because the Fedora Java Packaging Guidelines say so; JPackage guidelines have no say on this :) > As a side note, other packages originally coming from jpackage have Group: > Development/Libraries/Java instead of Development/Libraries (ie the > jakarta-commons-*.jar), but i used the last one to avoid an rpmlint warning. Yes, Development/Libraries/Java is not a standard group; a standard group must be used. > cheers (and thanks for your sponsorship!) No problem. You could still do a few other reviews of other packages. We need more reviewers!
> Because the Fedora Java Packaging Guidelines say so; JPackage guidelines have > no say on this :) Ok i found the thread in the ml and it was fairly convincing. The wiki should be fixed though, because the ant template suggests: %install rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} cp -p [build path to jar] \ $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar Can i do that or i need to ask someone to check it? here are the updated files: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs.spec http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs-1.0-3.fc10.src.rpm
Oh, still a few things to fix: - Source url is incorrect: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net Also, you might want to use %{version} in the Source URL line, so that you don't have to change the version in multiple locations (you might end up building an old version). - I don't think the explicit Java version is necessary: 1.4.2 is quite old and is found on every distribution. (In reply to comment #5) > > Because the Fedora Java Packaging Guidelines say so; JPackage guidelines have > > no say on this :) > > Ok i found the thread in the ml and it was fairly convincing. Which mailing list? > The wiki should be fixed though, because the ant template suggests: > > %install > rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT > mkdir -p $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir} > cp -p [build path to jar] \ > $RPM_BUILD_ROOT%{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar > > Can i do that or i need to ask someone to check it? I wouldn't touch it since it's a guideline page that has been approved by FESCo. I'll send a message about it to the packaging list.
Package doesn't build in mock. You are missing BuildRequires: junit after which it builds.
(In reply to comment #6) > > > > Ok i found the thread in the ml and it was fairly convincing. > > Which mailing list? > fedora-devel-list march 08; rhat site is under maintenance now, i found it mirrored here: http://markmail.org/message/layd6xszdwguafzs > I wouldn't touch it since it's a guideline page that has been approved by > FESCo. I'll send a message about it to the packaging list. ok
(In reply to comment #6) - Source url is incorrect: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL#Sourceforge.net Also, you might want to use %{version} in the Source URL line, so that you don't have to change the version in multiple locations (you might end up building an old version). ok - I don't think the explicit Java version is necessary: 1.4.2 is quite old and is found on every distribution. ok (jarg will compile starting with java2 afterwards) (In reply to comment #7) > Package doesn't build in mock. You are missing > BuildRequires: junit > after which it builds. That's weird i avoided building the junit tests; are you referring to the warnings produced while building javadoc? (like here http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1338558&name=build.log ) If we cant ignore those warnings i will modify the spec to include the test jar also.
(In reply to comment #9) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Package doesn't build in mock. You are missing > > BuildRequires: junit > > after which it builds. > > That's weird i avoided building the junit tests; are you referring to the > warnings produced while building javadoc? (like here > http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/getfile?taskID=1338558&name=build.log ) > If we cant ignore those warnings i will modify the spec to include the test jar > also. If junit is not BR'd, the mock build fails in a bunch of errors (58 of them to be exact). If it is then it works. It does build the test jar, but AFAIK there's no need to ship it.
Things should be sorted out now; files here: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs.spec http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs-1.0-4.fc10.src.rpm Koji scratch build is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1345057
- You still need to fix the SourceURL line. - Also, I'd use %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar and %{_javadocdir}/%{name}/ instead of using %{_javadir}/* %{_javadocdir}/*
ping?
(In reply to comment #13) > ping? hello Jussi, latest files are here: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs.spec http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/jargs/jargs-1.0-5.fc10.src.rpm Koji build is here: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1364002 I still dont understand how build could fail in mock while scratch building ok in koji, however things should be sorted right now.
Okay, everything should be fine now. The package has been APPROVED
thx Jussi New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: jargs Short Description: Java command line option parsing suite Owners: guidograzioli Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
cvs done.
jargs-1.0-5.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jargs-1.0-5.fc11
jargs-1.0-5.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/jargs-1.0-5.fc10
jargs-1.0-5.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
jargs-1.0-5.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.