Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
Summary: Review Request: javatar - Java tar archive io package
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529084
Summary: Review Request: javatar - Java tar archive io package Product: Fedora Version: rawhide Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: orion@cora.nwra.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: notting@redhat.com, fedora-package-review@redhat.com Estimated Hours: 0.0 Classification: Fedora
Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/javatar.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/javatar-2.5-1.fc12.src.rpm Description: The package com.ice.tar implements a tar archive io package. This package allows you to create, and extract tar archives. Since the package uses InputStream and OutputStream, it is possible to combine this package with the java.util.zip package to handle .tar.gz files.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529084
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |loganjerry@gmail.com AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |loganjerry@gmail.com Flag| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #1 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2009-10-26 15:53:07 EDT --- In the build log, I see this:
deploy: [jar] Building jar: /builddir/build/BUILD/javatar-2.5/tar-2.5/jars/tar.jar [jar] Manifest warning: "Name" attributes should not occur in the main section and must be the first element in all other sections: "Name: "Java Tar""
Is this caused by the sed invocation on the manifest file? If so, is that invocation correct? Also, the source archive contains .class files in classes/com/ice/tar. Would you mind deleting those in %prep, just to be sure they don't affect compilation?
The javadoc documentation is neither rebuilt nor packaged. Would you consider invoking "ant javadoc", and putting the contents of doc/api into a -javadoc subpackage?
Here is the output of rpmlint:
javatar.src:97: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} javatar-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources ../SPECS/javatar.spec:97: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package (main package) %attr(-,root,root) %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} 3 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 1 errors, 2 warnings.
The warnings are just part of life with GCJ and can be ignored. The error is a problem. Why are there no sources in the debuginfo package?
MUST items: XX: rpmlint output (see above) OK: naming guidelines OK: spec file name matches base package name OK: packaging guidelines OK: licensing guidelines OK: license field matches actual license OK: license file included in %doc OK: spec file in American English OK: spec file is legible OK: sources match upstream (md5sum of both is 7dae3b92b70c30cfb6fd9699a79f821c) OK: successfully compiles on at least one arch (x86_64) NA: proper use of ExcludeArch OK: all build dependencies in BuildRequires NA: proper locale handling NA: ldconfig invocation OK: no copies of system libraries NA: relocatable package OK: package owns all directories it creates OK: no duplicate listings in %files OK: proper permissions on files OK: %clean section OK: consistent use of macros OK: code or permissible content NA: large documentation in -doc OK: no runtime dependencies in %doc NA: header files in -devel NA: static libraries in -static NA: Requires: pkgconfig NA: .so files in -devel NA: -devel requires main package NA: no libtool archives NA: desktop file for GUI applications OK: do not own files/dirs owned by other packages OK: clean at top of %install OK: all filenames are valid UTF-8
SHOULD items: NA: query upstream for a file containing the license NA: description and summary contain available translations OK: package builds in mock (only tested Fedora 11 x86_64) ??: package builds on all supported arches (not able to test) OK: package functions as described (light testing only) OK: sane scriptlets NA: subpackages require main package NA: placement of pkgconfig files NA: file dependencies
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529084
--- Comment #2 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2009-10-26 19:37:30 EDT --- Spec URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/javatar.spec SRPM URL: http://www.cora.nwra.com/~orion/fedora/javatar-2.5-2.fc12.src.rpm
* Mon Oct 26 2009 Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com - 2.5-2 - Remove existing class files - Package javadocs - Make sure debuginfo has source files
(In reply to comment #1)
In the build log, I see this:
deploy: [jar] Building jar: /builddir/build/BUILD/javatar-2.5/tar-2.5/jars/tar.jar [jar] Manifest warning: "Name" attributes should not occur in the main section and must be the first element in all other sections: "Name: "Java Tar""
Is this caused by the sed invocation on the manifest file? If so, is that invocation correct?
The sed simply deletes the existing Class-Path: entry. I've got no idea about this. I'll post the to the fedora java devel list.
Also, the source archive contains .class files in classes/com/ice/tar. Would you mind deleting those in %prep, just to be sure they don't affect compilation?
Done.
The javadoc documentation is neither rebuilt nor packaged. Would you consider invoking "ant javadoc", and putting the contents of doc/api into a -javadoc subpackage?
It is actually getting built, just not packaged. Fixed.
Here is the output of rpmlint:
javatar-debuginfo.x86_64: E: debuginfo-without-sources
The warnings are just part of life with GCJ and can be ignored. The error is a problem. Why are there no sources in the debuginfo package?
I think aot-compile-rpm gets confused with the copy of source files. Removing that seems to have fixed it.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529084
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
--- Comment #3 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2009-10-27 11:40:23 EDT --- Looks good, then. I took a look at a few existing manifests as well. I think your guess that Name should be com/ice/tar/ is correct. I don't see any need for me to hold up this review for that trivial change, so this package is approved, and you can fix that before you check in to CVS.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529084
Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
--- Comment #4 from Orion Poplawski orion@cora.nwra.com 2009-10-27 13:02:57 EDT --- Thanks for the review.
New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: javatar Short Description: Java tar archive io package Owners: orion Branches: F-12 F-11 EL-5 InitialCC:
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529084
Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
--- Comment #5 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2009-10-28 20:06:38 EDT --- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=529084
Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |CURRENTRELEASE
--- Comment #6 from Jerry James loganjerry@gmail.com 2009-12-04 14:42:01 EDT --- This appears to have been available for a month now, so I'm closing this bug.
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla