[Bug 232719] maven2-2.0.4-10jpp.3 - Java project management and project comprehension tool

bugzilla at redhat.com bugzilla at redhat.com
Mon Mar 19 19:00:41 UTC 2007


Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional
comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report.

Summary: maven2-2.0.4-10jpp.3 - Java project management and project comprehension tool


https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232719





------- Additional Comments From mwringe at redhat.com  2007-03-19 15:00 EST -------
(In reply to comment #6)
> >  - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on
> >    how to generate the the source drop; ie.
> >   # svn export blah/tag blah
> >   # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah
> > X no instructions on how to recreate m2_jar_repo.tar.gz
> > X no instructions on how to recreate m2_jar_repo.tar.gz
> >
> 
> I have added URL's to the location where I got the poms/jars from. Those files
> are onlyused during the bootstrap phase by the way. Once maven is in the root,
> those files are no longer required.
It would be nice to have actual instructions for how to recreate these tars, but
I guess since the files are autogenerated on the servers (and have since
changed) and its only for bootstrapping, I guess it should be ok.

> 
> > * license text included in package and marked with %doc
> > X license missing from packages: maven2 and the plugin packages
> >
> 
> Added this to the base package
Please also add the appropriate license files for the plugin packages. For
example the following plugins also have license files:
maven-dependency-plugin
maven-repository-plugin
maven-project-info-reports-plugin

> 
> > X the main package's description does, but the plugins description is just the
> > summary.
> >
> 
> Fixed
Thanks

> 
> > * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace)
> > X Doesn't maven2 have any config files?
> >
> 
> No. /etc/maven/* files are not strictly config files per se. There is only one
> config file (%{_datadir}/%{name}/bin/*.conf) and I have now marked it accordingly
Ok

> >
> > W: maven2 incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0.4-10jpp.3 0:2.0.4-10jpp.3.fc7
> > X is this caused by the epoch or the dist?
> >
> 
> I believe botth will cause it. However, I have added the epoch to the changelog,
> as it needs to be there.
> 
> > W: maven2 no-documentation
> > X Shouldn't there be at least some licensing documentation?
> >
> 
> Added this
Please see note above about licenses for plugins

> > W: maven2 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/maven2/plugins
> /usr/share/maven2/plugins
> > W: maven2 symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/java/maven2/plugins
> > /usr/share/maven2/plugins
> > W: maven2 dangling-symlink /usr/share/maven2/repository/JPP /usr/share/java
> > W: maven2 symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/maven2/repository/JPP
> > /usr/share/java
> > W: maven2 symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/java/maven2/poms
> > /usr/share/maven2/poms
> > X Can the above symlinks be fixed?
> >
> 
> No. /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils which is a pre-req. That dir
> should not be owned by maven.
Ok
> 
> > W: maven2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven2
> > X this should be marked as a conf file (%conf)
> >
> 
> It is not strictly a config file. However, after looking through the FHS, /etc/
> still seems to be the most logical place for it. This decision can be revisited
> later -- but for the time being, I think it is f
> ine despite the warning.
OK
> 
> > W: maven2 dangerous-command-in-%preun rm
> > X can this command be removed?
> >
> 
> Nope. That command is required to delete items created in %post
OK

> > 
> > SHOULD:
> > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc
> > X licenses missing from file set
> 
> Added now.
> 
> http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/maven2/maven2.spec
> http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/maven2/maven2-2.0.4-10jpp.3.src.rpm

A skipped suggestion:
* consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps
X the -p is not used anywhere in %prep section



-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact.




More information about the package-review mailing list