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@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review? |fedora-review+ --- Comment #6 from Stanislav Ochotnicky <sochotni@xxxxxxxxxx> 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review