[Bug 610079] Review Request: bindex - Bundle Manifest Header Mapper

[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=610079

Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> changed:

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

--- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni at redhat.com> 2010-07-29 04:04:51 EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
> (In reply to comment #4)
> > NEEDSWORK: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines.
> > 
> > I am not sure how you got to "Version: 2.2". I couldn't find anything
> > in the archive/homepage suggesting that's the last version of the
> > package. This seems like the snapshot pre-release of version 0. So it
> > should be something like:
> > 
> > Version: 0
> The bundle version 2.2 is established in the bundle descriptor:
> http://www.osgi.org/svn/public/trunk/org.osgi.impl.bundle.bindex/bindex.bnd
> So, I'll use "Version: 2.2".

Sure, missed that one.

> > Release: 0.1.svn96%{?dist}
> Of course, it is more closer with the guidelines.
> But, seems, due to version 2.2 (i.e. it is not pre-release) I need use
> Release: 1.svn96%{?dist}

I guess it's hard to tell because of how upstream does "releases" so I'll leave
this up to you. This seems like reasonable versioning in this case

> > One way or the other it would be nice to get in touch with upstream 
> > and get them to actually release versioned binary release
> > (e.g. bindex-%{version}.zip/tar.xx)
> I agree. I think, both moment and contents of the release is not clear if an
> archive of the upstream sources (not only versioned binary release!) is not
> published.
> I'll send a request to authors of the bindex program.

Great.

> > NEEDSWORK: The spec file for the package MUST be legible.
> > 
> > You define a LOT of macros that are only used once:
> >  * svnRev/svnURL
> >  * bnd
> >  * installJAR
> >  * rmFiles/rmFiles_lst
> > 
> > Please don't do this, it just makes the spec file harder to read
> > without adding any benefit. I know it can be tempting to treat spec
> > file as a bash script, but think of it more as a "recipe" where you
> > just define the ingredients and few hints how to cook it :-) Make it
> > as simple as possible.
> OK. I've removed most of the macros, but I'd like to consider svnRev as a
> version: 
> https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL#Using_.25.7Bversion.7D

Sure, I just wanted to clear-up the spec. Seemed too convoluted to me. Now it's
good.

> > Plus one more thing. Instead of creating lnSysJar macro, use
> > build-classpath or build-classpath-directory commands.
> OK. The build-classpath is used instead.
> 
> > I know it doesn't work well with renames when creating symlinks, 
> > so maybe you would have to patch ... or something like that...
> I do not think that a patch makes the spec more clear, so I've decided to use 
> %__ln_s with build-classpath instead.

Agreed, good solution too.

Package is 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.