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=464014 Lillian Angel <langel@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag| |needinfo?(loganjerry@gmail. | |com) --- Comment #10 from Lillian Angel <langel@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-05 15:48:47 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > Lillian, thanks for the review. I've been wanting to get this package into > Fedora for a very long time. It's good to see that we're almost done with its > dependencies and have movement on the package itself. Here are my responses to > the items raised above: > > > XXXX 1.4 No inclusion of pre-built binaries or libraries > > The lib/*.jars and questionable files should be removed from the zip > > prior to uploading it. Please recreate the zip. > > I do not know of any questionable files in the source release. To what do you > refer? > > By my reading of https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/SourceURL, I have to > use the unmodified zip file unless that file contains prohibited elements. The > jars in the lib directory are all released under licenses that allow > redistribution. This includes AppleJavaExtension.jar, whose license > information (included in lib/LICENSE_AppleJavaExtensions.txt) shows that that > jar is distributed under a slightly modified MIT license. Unless I have > misunderstood something, I must not modify the zip file. If I have > misunderstood, please help me understand. > > Note that the spec file deletes all the jar files in the %prep stage, so none > of them are used in building. As long as all the files are redistributable, this is ok. Thanks for the explanation. > > > XXXX 1.15 Requires > > Have each on a separate "Requires" line. > > XXXX 1.16 BuildRequires > > Have each on a separate "BuildRequires" line. > > I do prefer keeping them on one line. In my typical monitor setup, vertical > space is more precious than horizontal space. Nevertheless, this is such a > minor point that I don't really want to argue about it, so I'll do it your way. As I said, I wont reject the review based on this. If you would prefer to group them in such a way, that is fine. Comments can help to explain the groupings. We can leave this as is. > > > XXXX 1.17 Summary and description > > Can you shorten the tools description. This is too much information- > > possibly remove the class names etc. > > This information appears nowhere else. If I take it out of the description, > where do you suggest I put it? Don't take out the description, please modify it. It should be short and concise. > > > XXXX 1.23 Requiring Base Package > > ok, but please put all "Requires" on a separate line > > Done. > > Now for the rpmlint complaints: > > > ant-findbugs.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Build Tools > > This is the group of ant itself, also maven. Since groups aren't consumed by > any Fedora tools (they use comps.xml instead), the group really doesn't matter > anyway. I think this choice is appropriate so that it corresponds to ant. > ok, that's fine. > > findbugs.noarch: W: wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding /usr/share/doc/findbugs-1.3.7/doc/manual_ja.xml > > I included the entire doc directory in %doc. But this file is input to > docbook, and shouldn't appear in the binary rpm. It looks like the files named > manual* are no longer needed once the manual is built. I'll delete them. Or run dos2unix on the file > > > findbugs.noarch: W: class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/findbugs-1.3.7.jar > > The ClassPath entry in the manifest is necessary to find dependent jars. The > rpmlint complaint about older Java versions no longer applies to any supported > Fedora release, nor even to the latest RedHat EL. It is true that versioned > ClassPath entries are inflexible, but note that I used only unversioned > entries. see Andrew's comment above. > > > findbugs.src:109: E: hardcoded-library-path in ../../lib/findbugs-tools.jar > > This is bogus. That is the lib directory in the source distribution, not /lib > or /usr/lib. ok. > > > findbugs.src: W: non-coherent-filename findbugs-1.3.7-2.src.rpm findbugs-1.3.7-2.fc10.src.rpm > > That's just a filename problem on my web site, not a spec file problem. It > will have no effect on koji builds. I'll give you a well-named file below. thanks > > > findbugs-javadoc.noarch: W: non-standard-group Development/Documentation > > Same remark as the one above about the main package group. ok > > New versions are here: > Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs.spec > SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/findbugs/findbugs-1.3.7-3.fc10.src.rpm -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review