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=492203 --- Comment #8 from Pavel Alexeev (aka Pahan-Hubbitus) <pahan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-01 05:35:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #7) > > $ ant jar javadocs > I noticed that ant is pulled by other BR's. But I added it anyways. Off course. In opposite it was not be built. But it is may be occasionaly and this BR required by guidelines for ant-based packages. > The patch is not needed for the SevenZip that is in the frinika tarball. It is > specific for the SevenZip we have in Fedora. If bundled SevenZip is not used anymore, you really need this patch? > > From this I look again on this symlinks. I think instead of doing such symlink > > you should use build-classpath: > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#build-classpath > > build-classpath only works for jar files that go to %{_javadir}. As indicated > in > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#Guideline > the JNI using jar files go to %{_libdir}/%{name} and build-classpath will not > work on them. They need to be added manually. Cite from above URL: If the package installs a wrapper script you'll need to manually add %{_libdir}/%{name}/<jar filename> to CLASSPATH. If you are depending on a JNI-using JAR file, you'll need to add it manually -- build-classpath will not find it. ====end cite As I can understand it, it is about adding paths into CLASSPATH manually, not create symlinks. I'm not very similar with java (as you already known), sorry if it is not correct. > I updated the package (also fixed the other issues you pointed): > Spec URL: http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/frinika.spec > SRPM URL: > http://oget.fedorapeople.org/review/frinika-0.5.1-4.548svn.fc11.src.rpm > > ChangeLog: 0.5.1-4.548svn > - Update to svn revision 548 > - License is GPLv2+ > - Add BR: ant > - Add more comments on sources & patches > - Make the snapshot script nicer (thanks to Pavel Alexeev) > - Remove flexdock versioned symlink workaround > - Remove some unneeded sources > > > So, I removed the Dknob sources from src/com/dreamfabric/ . As far as I can > tell, they are not used by frinika. I think the only remaining issues are these > additional sources. I asked about them (Dknob and others) upstream > https://sourceforge.net/forum/forum.php?thread_id=3319021&forum_id=447356 > They usually respond fast. Let us wait and see what will come out. Ok, I'm not hurrying yum. Meanwhile, on current stage some additional notes: 1) lib directory in tarball contains many binary jars and even library .so. It is needed? I'm still do not do any investigation, but you are assured tha don't used in build? What all built from sources? May be safely remove such binaries in our svn-fetch script? 2) Just for note: In fetch script in "latest" option first fetch last revision number to provide in -r option of svn. It is excessive. There may be HEAD. Or just this key ommited (how you was used it in "svn co" previous). Like: if [ 'latest' == "$1" ]; then REV="-rHEAD" # OR just REV="" else REV="-r$1" fi .... svn export $REV .... 3) I see comment about all other sources. But what about fetch instruction to Source0 (about what script with what parameter must be used)? 4) You remove DKnode, nice. But petersalomonsen component stil here. 5) Just intresting: # Remove some unneded sources rm -fr src/uk/ac/bath/gui/vamp/KnobWidget.java rm -fr src/uk/ac/bath/gui/vamp/VAmp2Editor.java for what them? Is there any legal issues? It is break build? Most other seems good. I'll relook on it again after we got answer from Dknob upstream and make decision what do with petersalomonsen. -- 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