[Bug 1289604] Review Request: bookkeeper - Replicated log service

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289604



--- Comment #3 from Mark McKinstry <mmckinst at umich.edu> ---
Issues
======

[!]: Package does not own files or directories owned by other packages.
     Note: Dirs in package are owned also by: /usr/share/maven-
     poms/bookkeeper(bookkeeper-java), /usr/share/java/bookkeeper
     (bookkeeper-java)
[!]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even
     when building with ant
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.

AFAICT the tests aren't run in the build section?


NON blocking issues
===================
- Package does not use a name that already exists.
  Note: A package with this name already exists. Please check
  https://admin.fedoraproject.org/pkgdb/acls/name/bookkeeper
  See:
 
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#Conflicting_Package_Names

It looks like you're reviving the dead package so this is fine.

[!]: Patches link to upstream bugs/comments/lists or are otherwise
     justified.

commentary on what the patches are for would be nice. it appears its because
Fedora has newer versions of guava and jline?

Following files don't have any copyright:
bookkeeper-4.3.2/bookkeeper-server/src/main/java/org/apache/bookkeeper/proto/BookkeeperProtocol.java
bookkeeper-4.3.2/hedwig-client-jms/src/main/java/org/apache/hedwig/jms/message/header/JmsHeader.java

Is it necessary to have all of the subpackages that just have one or two files
in them?

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component