[Bug 609130] Review Request: felix-framework - Felix Framework Interfaces and Classes

[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=609130

--- Comment #7 from Victor G. Vasilyev <victor.vasilyev at sun.com> 2010-07-21 08:32:36 EDT ---
Stanislav, Chris,

Thanks a lot for your reviews!

(In reply to comment #2)
> In case you will be doing more releases...please change BRs from
> maven2-plugin-XX to maven-XX-plugin. New plugins provide old names, but it
> would be better to get rid of old names and not introduce them in new 
> packages.
OK, but now
# yum --disablerepo=* --enablerepo=rawhide install maven-surefire-plugin
maven-bundle-plugin
Loaded plugins: presto, refresh-packagekit
Setting up Install Process
No package maven-surefire-plugin available.
No package maven-bundle-plugin available.

Hence, I'll add to the spec something like this:
# TODO check availability and use new names
#BuildRequires:    maven-surefire-plugin
#BuildRequires:    maven-bundle-plugin
# instead of
BuildRequires:    maven2-plugin-surefire
BuildRequires:    maven-plugin-bundle


(In reply to comment #4)
> Few notes:
>  * keep an eye out for felix-parent
>  (https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=615868). After the
>  package is built you can modify your patch and add felix-parent to BRs.
OK.
>  * your use of '~' to separate parts of filename is a little bit
>  untraditional (IMO), but not violating anything :-)
The '~'sign has various meanings in different contexts, not only a home
directory :-) 
Please, read the sign as "<subject> with changing of <something>", e.g. in this
case the statement 
%{mame}-%{version}~pom.xml.patch
has the following meaning:
A patch for %{mame}-%{version}  with changing of the pom.xml.

>  Was it necessary to remove tests? Simple -Dmaven.test.skip=true
>  wouldn't work? You commented on this so it's perfectly fine to remove
>  them...just wondering.
The tests are compiled with errors without the rat-maven-plugin that is not in
Fedora yet.

(In reply to comment #5)
> * Since the javadoc package is independent from the base package, it must
> include a copy of the license according to
> http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines#Subpackage_Licensing
OK. I'll add a copy of the license to the javadoc sub-package.

-- 
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.