Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: maven2-2.0.4-10jpp.3 - Java project management and project comprehension tool https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232719 ------- Additional Comments From mwringe@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-19 15:00 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > > - if upstream doesn't release source drops, put *clear* instructions on > > how to generate the the source drop; ie. > > # svn export blah/tag blah > > # tar cjf blah-version-src.tar.bz2 blah > > X no instructions on how to recreate m2_jar_repo.tar.gz > > X no instructions on how to recreate m2_jar_repo.tar.gz > > > > I have added URL's to the location where I got the poms/jars from. Those files > are onlyused during the bootstrap phase by the way. Once maven is in the root, > those files are no longer required. It would be nice to have actual instructions for how to recreate these tars, but I guess since the files are autogenerated on the servers (and have since changed) and its only for bootstrapping, I guess it should be ok. > > > * license text included in package and marked with %doc > > X license missing from packages: maven2 and the plugin packages > > > > Added this to the base package Please also add the appropriate license files for the plugin packages. For example the following plugins also have license files: maven-dependency-plugin maven-repository-plugin maven-project-info-reports-plugin > > > X the main package's description does, but the plugins description is just the > > summary. > > > > Fixed Thanks > > > * config files should usually be marked with %config(noreplace) > > X Doesn't maven2 have any config files? > > > > No. /etc/maven/* files are not strictly config files per se. There is only one > config file (%{_datadir}/%{name}/bin/*.conf) and I have now marked it accordingly Ok > > > > W: maven2 incoherent-version-in-changelog 2.0.4-10jpp.3 0:2.0.4-10jpp.3.fc7 > > X is this caused by the epoch or the dist? > > > > I believe botth will cause it. However, I have added the epoch to the changelog, > as it needs to be there. > > > W: maven2 no-documentation > > X Shouldn't there be at least some licensing documentation? > > > > Added this Please see note above about licenses for plugins > > W: maven2 dangling-symlink /usr/share/java/maven2/plugins > /usr/share/maven2/plugins > > W: maven2 symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/java/maven2/plugins > > /usr/share/maven2/plugins > > W: maven2 dangling-symlink /usr/share/maven2/repository/JPP /usr/share/java > > W: maven2 symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/maven2/repository/JPP > > /usr/share/java > > W: maven2 symlink-should-be-relative /usr/share/java/maven2/poms > > /usr/share/maven2/poms > > X Can the above symlinks be fixed? > > > > No. /usr/share/java is owned by jpackage-utils which is a pre-req. That dir > should not be owned by maven. Ok > > > W: maven2 non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven2 > > X this should be marked as a conf file (%conf) > > > > It is not strictly a config file. However, after looking through the FHS, /etc/ > still seems to be the most logical place for it. This decision can be revisited > later -- but for the time being, I think it is f > ine despite the warning. OK > > > W: maven2 dangerous-command-in-%preun rm > > X can this command be removed? > > > > Nope. That command is required to delete items created in %post OK > > > > SHOULD: > > * package should include license text in the package and mark it with %doc > > X licenses missing from file set > > Added now. > > http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/maven2/maven2.spec > http://people.redhat.com/dbhole/fedora/maven2/maven2-2.0.4-10jpp.3.src.rpm A skipped suggestion: * consider using cp -p to preserve timestamps X the -p is not used anywhere in %prep section -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review