Bug 591947 - Review Request: maven-jar-plugin - Maven JAR Plugin
Review Request: maven-jar-plugin - Maven JAR Plugin
Status: CLOSED RAWHIDE
Product: Fedora
Classification: Fedora
Component: Package Review (Show other bugs)
rawhide
All Linux
medium Severity medium
: ---
: ---
Assigned To: Jeff Johnston
Fedora Extras Quality Assurance
:
Depends On:
Blocks:
  Show dependency treegraph
 
Reported: 2010-05-13 10:32 EDT by Alexander Kurtakov
Modified: 2010-05-18 16:45 EDT (History)
4 users (show)

See Also:
Fixed In Version:
Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of:
Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-05-18 16:45:36 EDT
Type: ---
Regression: ---
Mount Type: ---
Documentation: ---
CRM:
Verified Versions:
Category: ---
oVirt Team: ---
RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: ---
jjohnstn: fedora‑review+
dennis: fedora‑cvs+


Attachments (Terms of Use)

  None (edit)
Description Alexander Kurtakov 2010-05-13 10:32:12 EDT
Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/maven-jar-plugin.spec
SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/maven-jar-plugin-2.3-1.fc13.src.rpm
Description: Builds a Java Archive (JAR) file from the compiled 
project classes and resources.
Comment 1 Alexander Kurtakov 2010-05-13 10:42:02 EDT
Notes about this package:
- It requires maven-plugin-testing in the dist-f14-maven221 tag.
Comment 2 Chen Lei 2010-05-14 01:46:11 EDT
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?
Comment 3 Alexander Kurtakov 2010-05-14 01:59:19 EDT
(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.
Comment 4 Alexander Kurtakov 2010-05-14 09:54:31 EDT
Successful koji build in dist-f14-maven221 tag:
http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2187891
Comment 5 Jeff Johnston 2010-05-14 16:54:08 EDT
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.
Comment 6 Alexander Kurtakov 2010-05-14 17:00:54 EDT
New Package CVS Request
=======================
Package Name: maven-jar-plugin
Short Description: Maven JAR Plugin
Owners: akurtakov
Branches: 
InitialCC:
Comment 7 Chen Lei 2010-05-15 04:51:34 EDT
(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
Comment 8 Dennis Gilmore 2010-05-18 14:28:55 EDT
CVS Done
Comment 9 Alexander Kurtakov 2010-05-18 16:45:36 EDT
Build in koji.

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

Note You need to log in before you can comment on or make changes to this bug.