Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mchange-commons.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mchange-commons-0.2-0.2.20110130hg.fc14.src.rpm Description: Originally part of c3p0, mchange-commons is a set of general purpose utilities. Rpmlint output: mchange-commons.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. (This project doesn't ship anything you can call documentation.)
Is there a reason to not have javadoc subpackage?
Not especially, just the ant script doesn't build them. c3p0 will probably be the only package that will be using this mchange-commons, do you think it's worth me patching the build?
It's worth it at least for consistency sake. Our users are/should expect a javadoc subpackage to exist.
Ok, now we build the Javadocs :-) Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mchange-commons.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mchange-commons-0.3-0.2.20110130hg.fc14.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2753386 Rpmlint: mchange-commons.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
Sorry, typo in the srpm url: Spec URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mchange-commons.spec SRPM URL: http://mbooth.fedorapeople.org/reviews/mchange-commons-0.2-0.3.20110130hg.fc14.src.rpm Scratch build: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=2753386 Rpmlint: mchange-commons.noarch: W: no-documentation 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings.
I guess we shouldn't review this package (and c3p0) until we know what is going to happen upstream: https://github.com/ether/pad/issuesearch?state=open&q=c3p0#issue/219
Alright, given that both c3p0 and this work now well together, I think we're good to go, especially since it doesn't seem like upstream is moving immediately. Taking this.
Hi Sebastian, Are you going to take 645009 as well?
Mat, when I get a spare minute, I will. :) Here's the official review. It looks pretty good so far. Could you pull again from upstream to make sure we get the latest version and match upstream? Also, according to the guidelines, you 'should' query upstream to include the license file, but I'm not going to block on that. Please pull the latest version and go ahead then. Otherwise: APPROVED. [ OK ] specfiles match: 55b22670abfe91bcd3b25625d58da15b131f6f911f8ff37ffdb4644aa937ef73 [ FAIL ] source files match upstream: 2b7c533be6f083239cc215bf850d39cbf5b5cafd59e0b5cd2ee1126db3b219bf is the latest upstream d2050642f67e7566e9878575e75ba81a973747c673079de605326d67594a1fda is being packaged [ OK ] package meets naming and versioning guidelines. [ OK ] spec is properly named, cleanly written, and uses macros consistently. [ OK ] dist tag is present. [ NA ] build root is correct. [ OK ] license field matches the actual license. [ OK ] license is open source-compatible. [ FAIL ] license text included in package. [ OK ] latest version is being packaged. [ OK ] BuildRequires are proper. [ NA ] compiler flags are appropriate. [ OK ] %clean is present. [ OK ] package builds in mock. [ OK ] package installs properly. [ NA ] debuginfo package looks complete. [ OK ] rpmlint is silent. [sebastian@bear rpmbuild]$ rpmlint ./RPMS/noarch/mchange-commons-0.2-0.3.20110130hg.fc14.noarch.rpm mchange-commons.noarch: W: no-documentation 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. [ OK ] final provides and requires are sane [ NA ] %check is present and all tests pass: [ OK ] no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. [ OK ] owns the directories it creates. [ OK ] doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. [ OK ] no duplicates in %files. [ OK ] file permissions are appropriate. [ NA ] scriptlets match those on ScriptletSnippets page. [ OK ] code, not content. [ NA ] documentation is small, so no -docs subpackage is necessary. [ NA ] %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. [ OK ] no headers. [ OK ] no pkgconfig files. [ OK ] no libtool .la droppings. [ NA ] desktop files valid and installed properly.
Thanks for the review, Sebastian. There hasn't been a commit upstream in 11 months: http://c3p0.hg.sourceforge.net/hgweb/c3p0/ So I think we can safely say that we have the latest code. ;-)
I should also say, that because we generate our own tarball from the upstream source control, the md5sums will likely always be different due to timestamps. This is a common problem for packages whose upstream do not ship tarballs.
New Package SCM Request ======================= Package Name: mchange-commons Short Description: A collection of general purpose utilities for c3p0 Owners: mbooth Branches: F-15
Git done (by process-git-requests).
mchange-commons-0.2-0.3.20110130hg.fc15 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 15. https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/mchange-commons-0.2-0.3.20110130hg.fc15
mchange-commons-0.2-0.3.20110130hg.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 testing repository.
mchange-commons-0.2-0.3.20110130hg.fc15 has been pushed to the Fedora 15 stable repository.