https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1289604
--- Comment #4 from gil cattaneo puntogil@libero.it --- (In reply to Mark McKinstry from comment #3)
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)
these directories should be handled (owner) by javapackages-tools during the install. if i add %dir /usr/share/maven-poms/bookkeeper{,-java} i introduce duplicated files in this package
[!]: If package contains pom.xml files install it (including metadata) even when building with ant
handled by javapackages-tools
[!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
AFAICT the tests aren't run in the build section?
maven build style do not required %check 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.
i want re-import this package, was retired because of log4cxx retirements
[!]: 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?
yes, i thought it was obvious, but if you prefer i can add comments
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
these files are re-generated during the build
Is it necessary to have all of the subpackages that just have one or two files in them?
It is a normal practice.