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=607385
--- Comment #6 from Victor G. Vasilyev victor.vasilyev@sun.com 2010-06-30 09:03:50 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5)
Other:
- javadoc subpackage should have requires on jpackage-utils (sorry I didn't notice before)
Fixed. It is an example why review is need. I know about that, but I've not noticed it too.
- why "Prevent brp-java-repack-jars from being run." ?
AFAIK the brp-java-repack-jars is only needed for the arch-specific Java packages only. [1] I think, it should be usual practice for all pure-Java non-JNI packages until current default behaviour of the rpmbuild is changed.
Because, it lets to : * avoid problems like [2]; * reduce build time; * be more closer to the original projects and expectations of their authors. E.g. changing of the archiving options can have impact on performance of the Java application/library.
[1] http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2008-September/003113.ht... [2] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465664
- there is %{_mavenpomdir} macro you can use instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
Fixed.
You are correct, documentation on proper maven packages should be improved, no argument there. Why I asked for maven build? I assumed that's what upstream is using, and it's always best to use the same build system as upstream unless there is good reason not to.
I absolutely agree with all :-)
All in all package is APPROVED.
Third revision of the package with the fixes mentioned above is prepared.
Spec URL: http://victorv.fedorapeople.org/files/felix-osgi-foundation.spec SRPM URL: http://victorv.fedorapeople.org/files/felix-osgi-foundation-1.2.0-3.fc14.src...