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

Summary: Review Request: jsr-305 - reference implementation of JSR-305

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446134

loganjerry@gmail.com changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: jsr-305 - |Review Request: jsr-305 - |reference implementation of |reference implementation of |JSR-305 |JSR-305

------- Additional Comments From loganjerry@gmail.com 2008-05-12 18:22 EST ------- I forgot to note that I asked upstream to include a license file: http://groups.google.com/group/jsr-305/msg/959fee95941a8743. I made this request on 18 Apr 2008, with no response so far.

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

Summary: Review Request: jsr-305 - reference implementation of JSR-305

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446134

tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |tibbs@math.uh.edu

------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2008-06-28 18:37 EST ------- I have essentially no idea what this package is for, and very little knowledge of Java, but it's been in the queue for six weeks and I can read the packaging guidelines as well as anyone else so I'll see what I can do.

This builds fine for me; rpmlint says: jsr-305.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/jsr-305 Unfortunate; these should be under /usr/share but that's what our maven package does so you have no choice.

jsr-305.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java jsr-305-javadoc.x86_64: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation These don't matter; we don't care what goes in Group:.

The URL in the spec (and the comment before the License: tag, and what's in Source1) are 404 for me. It works if you remove the "index.html" bit.

I don't think it's necessary to include a copy of the upstream web page to prove the license, although if you have a copy of the email sent in response to your query, perhaps you might want to include that. If you do want to include a copy, though, please do use a functioning URL.

You will need to include instructions for actually obtaining the subversion snapshot that you include in the package. And it would be a good idea to version the tarball as well. See http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL

Looking at the debug package, it seems that a bunch of the source is missing. I do not know enough about java to tell if something's gone wrong here or if the source files just aren't supposed to be there for whatever reason. Can you have a look?

I thought the Java folks had decided that they didn't want to make unversioned symlinks for javadocs. I don't, however, see it in any of the guidelines, neither encouraged nor discouraged.

This package should not own /etc/maven/fragments. The same goes for /usr/share/maven2/poms. Unfortunately this is actually specified by the guidelines, so I'm working to try and get the guidelines fixed, because this is simply broken.

The guidelines indicate that all of the aot compilation bits should be conditionalized.

X can't compare source files with upstream; no instructions for making the svn checkout and Source1: URL does not exist. * package meets naming and versioning guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * summary is OK. * description is OK. * dist tag is present. * build root is OK. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. * license text not included upstream. * BuildRequires are proper. * %clean is present. * package builds in mock (rawhide, x86_64). * package installs properly. ? debuginfo package looks a bit too empty. * rpmlint has acceptable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: jsr-305-0-0.1.20080527svn.fc10.x86_64.rpm jsr-305-0.jar.so()(64bit) jsr-305 = 0-0.1.20080527svn.fc10 = /bin/sh java >= 1.5 java-gcj-compat >= 1.0.31 jpackage-utils libgcc_s.so.1()(64bit) libgcc_s.so.1(GCC_3.0)(64bit) libgcj_bc.so.1()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit)

jsr-305-javadoc-0-0.1.20080527svn.fc10.x86_64.rpm jsr-305-javadoc = 0-0.1.20080527svn.fc10 = jpackage-utils jsr-305 = 0-0.1.20080527svn.fc10

* %check is not present; no test suite usptream. (Although there's a couple of test directories in the tarball, they're empty.) * no shared libraries are added to the regular linker search paths. * owns the directories it creates. X shouldn't own /etc/maven/fragments or /usr/share/maven2/poms * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. X scriptlets shoudl consitionalize the aot bits. * code, not content. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no pre-built jars * single jar, named after the package * jarfiles are under _javadir. * javadocs are under _javadocdir. * maven called properly. * no wrapper script necessary. X gcj should be called conditionally.

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

Summary: Review Request: jsr-305 - reference implementation of JSR-305

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446134

tibbs@math.uh.edu changed:

What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|nobody@fedoraproject.org |tibbs@math.uh.edu Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag| |fedora-review?

------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2008-06-30 18:33 EST ------- Thanks for the info, and the description of the debuginfo package.

The ownership (and perhaps location) of the maven directories is under discussion currently and its possible that ownership of those directories will move into jpackage-utils by the end of the week.

I'm going to go ahead and take this for review, but I'm going to wait until that situation becomes clear before I approve anything.

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

Summary: Review Request: jsr-305 - reference implementation of JSR-305

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=446134

------- Additional Comments From tibbs@math.uh.edu 2008-07-03 22:32 EST ------- OK, please let me know when you'd like for me to take another look. The java folks have indicated that the directory ownership bits will be fixed soon so I'm prepared to move forward with this whenever you're ready.

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=446134

--- Comment #11 from Jason Tibbitts tibbs@math.uh.edu 2008-08-09 12:56:05 EDT --- OK, I'm back from vacation and have my build infrastructure running again.

Things still build. The checkout instructions work fine. The directory ownership issues are resolved on all sides. debuginfo issues are explained. gcj bits are conditionalized properly.

Everything looks good to me; APPROVED

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=446134

--- Comment #13 from Kevin Fenzi kevin@tummy.com 2008-08-11 13:28:30 EDT --- cvs done.