[Bug 607389] Review Request: felix-osgi-compendium - Felix OSGi R4 Compendium Bundle

[bugzilla at redhat.com]

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=607389

Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Flag|fedora-review?              |fedora-review+

--- Comment #4 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2010-07-12 05:02:26 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
> Note, in the section %files the following statement is used to avoid an rpmlint
> warning:
> %config(noreplace) %{_mavendepmapfragdir}/%{name}    
> 
> I hope, it is a correct solution for our purposes.
> See also the errata (page 50) here: http://foster-johnson.com/rpm.html 
> where behavior of %config(noreplace) is explained.
> 
> BTW If it is really right solution then it could also be addressed to examples
> of the spec files for maven projects that are published on Fedora's wiki pages.

I believe it's a correct solution and should really be added to packaging
guidelines for java/maven. I am not actually sure about proper way to update
these guidelines....I'll look it up.


OK: rpmlint must be run on every package. The output should be posted in the
review.
rpmlint completely clean
OK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines .
OK: The spec file name must match the base package %{name}, in the format
%{name}.spec unless your package has an exemption.  .
OK: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines .
OK: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet the
Licensing Guidelines .
OK: The License field in the package spec file must match the actual license. 
OK: If (and only if) the source package includes the text of the license(s) in
its own file, then that file, containing the text of the license(s) for the
package must be included in %doc.
OK: The spec file must be written in American English. 
OK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible. 
OK: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, as
provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no
upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL
Guidelines for how to deal with this.
OK: The package MUST successfully compile and build into binary rpms on at
least one primary architecture. 
OK: All build dependencies must be listed in BuildRequires, except for any that
are listed in the exceptions section of the Packaging Guidelines ; inclusion of
those as BuildRequires is optional. Apply common sense.
OK: Packages must NOT bundle copies of system libraries.
OK: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not create a
directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does create that
directory. 
OK: A Fedora package must not list a file more than once in the spec file's
%files listings. 
OK: Permissions on files must be set properly. Executables should be set with
executable permissions, for example. Every %files section must include a
%defattr(...) line. 
OK: Each package must consistently use macros. 
OK: The package must contain code, or permissable content. 
OK: Large documentation files must go in a -doc subpackage. (The definition of
large is left up to the packager's best judgement, but is not restricted to
size. Large can refer to either size or quantity). 
OK: If a package includes something as %doc, it must not affect the runtime of
the application. To summarize: If it is in %doc, the program must run properly
if it is not present. 
SORT OF OK: Packages must not own files or directories already owned by other
packages. The rule of thumb here is that the first package to be installed
should own the files or directories that other packages may rely upon. This
means, for example, that no package in Fedora should ever share ownership with
any of the files or directories owned by the filesystem or man package. If you
feel that you have a good reason to own a file or directory that another
package owns, then please present that at package review time. 

There are multiple packages owning /usr/share/java/felix. But it seems
that dependencies are not simple, so no single package can own that
directory. In these cases separate package should be created
containing just the directory and others should depend on it.
I will file separate bugs agains other felix packages already in
Fedora because there are more...

One one or the other I see no reason to reject the review just because
of this.

OK: All filenames in rpm packages must be valid UTF-8.


Other than that problem with directory ownership package is in perfect
shape. Be prepared to fix Requires once that filesystem package hits
rahide though...

APPROVED.

-- 
Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are on the CC list for the bug.