Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations Product: Fedora Version: devel Platform: All OS/Version: Linux Status: NEW Severity: medium Priority: medium Component: Package Review AssignedTo: nobody@fedoraproject.org ReportedBy: loganjerry@gmail.com QAContact: extras-qa@fedoraproject.org CC: fedora-package-review@redhat.com,notting@redhat.com
Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations-20060626-1.... Description: This package provides class, field, and method level annotations for describing thread-safety policies. These annotations are relatively unintrusive and are beneficial to both users and maintainers. Users can see immediately whether a class is thread-safe, and maintainers can see immediately whether thread-safety guarantees must be preserved. Annotations are also useful to a third constituency: tools. Static code-analysis tools may be able to verify that the code complies with the contract indicated by the annotation, such as verifying that a class annotated with @Immutable actually is immutable.
This package is the last prerequisite needed in Fedora in order for findbugs to be buildable.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
------- Additional Comments From alcapcom@gmail.com 2007-09-14 07:26 EST ------- Hello Jerry,
Before make a full review, we may need to modify some things in the current specfile. Here is a list of stuff that should be fixed before we can review package.
- The package naming don't fit with the Packaging/NamingGuidline, I think that this package fit good with pre-release package naming. Version: 0 Release: 2006xxxx.1%{?dist} http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#head-d97a3f40b6dd9d...
- To build the javadoc for F8 (IcedTea is in rawhide), you can use the %fedora macro to check for witch release of Fedora the package is build -> %if "%{fedora}" >= "8".
- Group tag is not correct, Development/Libraries seems to be the one to use.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
------- Additional Comments From loganjerry@gmail.com 2007-09-19 00:17 EST ------- Thanks for the comments. I changed the name and version number as suggested.
For the javadocs, I just unconditionally build them (because not every arch will have IcedTea, so the check with %{fedora} is insufficient). The package description for the javadocs notes that on systems with sinjdoc, the package contains nothing useful.
As for the Group tag, I don't understand the problem. On my machine, there are 64 packages in that group (e.g., axis, bcel, castor, jrefactory), and I certainly have not installed all of the Java packages available from Fedora. Why should the final '/Java' be dropped?
The new files are here: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations-0-20060626....
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
------- Additional Comments From loganjerry@gmail.com 2007-11-14 18:05 EST ------- Now that I can try IcedTea on an F8 machine, I found that the javadocs weren't being packaged quite correctly. Here is a new set of files that fixes the problem.
Spec: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations.spec SRPM: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations-0-20060626....
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
bugzilla@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Version|devel |rawhide
------- Additional Comments From loganjerry@gmail.com 2008-04-18 17:20 EST ------- Here are updated files that reflect the recently approved Java packaging guidelines.
Spec: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations.spec SRPM: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations-0-20060626....
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |rjones@redhat.com Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-review?
------- Additional Comments From rjones@redhat.com 2008-05-01 11:16 EST ------- Taking for review.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
------- Additional Comments From rjones@redhat.com 2008-05-02 03:56 EST ------- + rpmlint output
jcip-annotations.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java jcip-annotations.noarch: W: no-documentation jcip-annotations.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java jcip-annotations-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation
The Java guidelines are all over the place on the usage of 'Group:'. I would rename 'Development/Libraries/Java' -> 'Development/Libraries' and leave the other one alone.
+ package name satisfies the packaging naming guidelines + specfile name matches the package base name + package should satisfy packaging guidelines + license meets guidelines and is acceptable to Fedora CC-BY + license matches the actual package license - %doc includes license file
You need to add %doc ..../package.html to the main package.
+ spec file written in American English + spec file is legible + upstream sources match sources in the srpm 0a63cc4bca4a045aa56f3a12857857ea + package successfully builds on at least one architecture n/a ExcludeArch bugs filed + BuildRequires list all build dependencies n/a %find_lang instead of %{_datadir}/locale/* n/a binary RPM with shared library files must call ldconfig in %post and %postun n/a does not use Prefix: /usr + package owns all directories it creates + no duplicate files in %files + %defattr line + %clean contains rm -rf $RPM_BUILD_ROOT + consistent use of macros + package must contain code or permissible content n/a large documentation files should go in -doc subpackage n/a files marked %doc should not affect package n/a header files should be in -devel n/a static libraries should be in -static n/a packages containing pkgconfig (.pc) files need 'Requires: pkgconfig' n/a libfoo.so must go in -devel n/a -devel must require the fully versioned base ... but javadoc subpackage is OK n/a packages should not contain libtool .la files n/a packages containing GUI apps must include %{name}.desktop file n/a packages must not own files or directories owned by other packages + %install must start with rm -rf %{buildroot} etc. + filenames must be valid UTF-8
Optional:
n/a if there is no license file, packager should query upstream n/a translations of description and summary for non-English languages, if available + reviewer should build the package in mock Reviewer built it in Koji: http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=592450 n/a the package should build into binary RPMs on all supported architectures - review should test the package functions as described n/a scriptlets should be sane n/a pkgconfig files should go in -devel + shouldn't have file dependencies outside /etc /bin /sbin /usr/bin or /usr/sbin
==============
Please add the %doc line, and if necessary rename the groups. If you present an updated package with these changes then there shouldn't be any issue getting approval.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
------- Additional Comments From loganjerry@gmail.com 2008-05-05 17:32 EST ------- The package.html file is input to javadoc. The file named package-summary.html in the -javadoc subpackage contains that file, with some other stuff wrapping it. On the other hand, I should not be including the HTML file or the souce files in the jar. I'll fix that.
As for the groups, see comment #2. There are lots of existing packages with the same group names, and the Group tag is supposedly unimportant given comps.xml anyway. New version:
Spec: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations.spec SRPM: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jcip-annotations/jcip-annotations-0-20060626....
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
rjones@redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+
------- Additional Comments From rjones@redhat.com 2008-05-06 08:53 EST ------- OK, fair enough. I suspect it's a bug in rpmlint or else something which needs to be discussed about the Java guidelines. Anyway ...
==========
APPROVED
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |fedora-cvs?
------- Additional Comments From loganjerry@gmail.com 2008-05-06 12:11 EST ------- New Package CVS Request ======================= Package Name: jcip-annotations Short Description: Java annotations for describing thread-safety policies Owners: jjames Branches: F-8 F-9 InitialCC: Cvsextras Commits: yes
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
kevin@tummy.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-cvs? |fedora-cvs+
------- Additional Comments From kevin@tummy.com 2008-05-06 12:15 EST ------- cvs done.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.
Summary: Review Request: jcip-annotations - Java 5 thread safety annotations
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=262401
loganjerry@gmail.com changed:
What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|ASSIGNED |CLOSED Resolution| |NEXTRELEASE
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
-
Red Hat Bugzilla