Spec URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SPECS/javanotes.spec SRPM URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SRPMS/javanotes-5.1-1.fc10.src.rpm Description: The fifth edition of Introduction to Programming Using Java, a free, on-line textbook on introductory programming, which uses Java as the language of instruction. This book is directed mainly towards beginning programmers, although it might also be useful for experienced programmers who want to learn something about Java. It is certainly not meant to provide complete coverage of the Java language. This is the html version, start with index.html in the main directory.
License version is not mentioned in http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing so tagging FE-LEGAL for now.
Updated the License tag based on Spot's comment about License version nos. https://www.redhat.com/archives/fedora-packaging/2009-June/msg00108.html New spec and srpm are at: Spec URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SPECS/javanotes.spec SRPM URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SRPMS/javanotes-5.1-1.fc10.src.rpm
Removing FE-LEGAL.
Made a minor change -- removed the dist tag, since it doesn't really serve any purpose for this rpm (same as the reasoning in bz 507915). Newer spec and srpm are at: Spec URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SPECS/javanotes.spec SRPM URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SRPMS/javanotes-5.1-1.src.rpm
There's not much to this package. You're right that the dist tag isn't necessary, but do keep in mind that not having it will not reduce download time as each release is signed with a different key (and hence the packages are different anyway), and you will be responsible for making sure that the release you push to F11 has a different version than what you push to F10 (and from what you push to devel). But that's up to you; the dist tag only makes this convenient. Just don't be surprised when you get "tag already exists" errors. Packaging-wise there's not much to talk about; the package just unpacks a tarball and drops it under /usr/share/doc. One issue that bothers me, though, is that the directory isn't versioned, unlike essentially every other directory in /usr/share/doc. The package I'd compare this against, diveintopython, versions its directory. Did you consider doing that? * source files match upstream. sha256sum: 74f5c1a2525ea735f2f460dd36f416b6728ad7cdf4ef2d4a42a2d0e6686c5d43 javanotes5.tar.bz2 * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * latest version is being packaged. * BuildRequires are proper (none). * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. * rpmlint is silent. * final provides and requires are sane: javanotes = 5.1-1 = (none) * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * no generically named files. * acceptable content. The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package reviews recently, please consider doing one.
(In reply to comment #5) > There's not much to this package. You're right that the dist tag isn't > necessary, but do keep in mind that not having it will not reduce download time > as each release is signed with a different key (and hence the packages are > different anyway), and you will be responsible for making sure that the release > you push to F11 has a different version than what you push to F10 (and from > what you push to devel). But that's up to you; the dist tag only makes this > convenient. Just don't be surprised when you get "tag already exists" errors. > I've added the dist tag back to the spec. > Packaging-wise there's not much to talk about; the package just unpacks a > tarball and drops it under /usr/share/doc. One issue that bothers me, though, > is that the directory isn't versioned, unlike essentially every other directory > in /usr/share/doc. The package I'd compare this against, diveintopython, > versions its directory. Did you consider doing that? > Sounds reasonable. Done this too. New spec and srpm are at: Spec URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SPECS/javanotes.spec SRPM URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SRPMS/javanotes-5.1-2.fc10.src.rpm > The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package > reviews recently, please consider doing one. Sure, will pick at least a couple up. thanks, - steve
FYI, another of your documentation packages seems to have spawned some discussion about the admissibility of, well, some class of documentation-only packages (or packages containing books) that nobody seems able to define but which this package seems to fall into. The fact that nobody ever complained about diveintopython, or python-docs for that matter, was all the justification I needed to approve this, but this discussion has shown that it's at least prudent to wait to see what comes of the discussion. So at this point I'd approve this if I knew the rules weren't going to change. If nothing happens at the next FESCo meeting (on the 10th) then I'll move forward with this. Unfortunately there was no meeting today due to the US independence holiday.
Looks like the person making the stink about this didn't end up submitting his arguments to FESCo. In the meantime there's an entire documentation effort writing books like fedora-security-guide which are being included into the distribution without argument. So honestly I can't see any reason why this package wouldn't be similarly OK. APPROVED
Hi Jason, Thanks for your time ! Could you also please review and approve bug #507912 ? - steve
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: javanotes Short Description: Introduction to Programming Using Java, By David J. Eck Owners: lonetwin Branches: F-10 F-11 InitialCC:
cvs done.
javanotes-5.1-2.fc10 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 10. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/javanotes-5.1-2.fc10
javanotes-5.1-2.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11. http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/javanotes-5.1-2.fc11
javanotes-5.1-2.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
javanotes-5.1-2.fc10 has been pushed to the Fedora 10 stable repository. If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.