[Bug 834574] Review Request: reflections - Java run time meta data analysis

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=834574



--- Comment #17 from gil cattaneo <puntogil@xxxxxxxxx> ---
(In reply to Alec Leamas from comment #16)
> (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #14)
> 
> 
> > > - The package seems to contain a test suite. If possible, run this in
> > >   %check (or put a  motivation in spec why not)
> > test suite is already executed, with maven no need to run it in %check
> 
> Since the test suite won't run, please make a  note in the spec.

that jar was removed, but test suite is still being executed in %build section
because is a maven style build and comment is superflous

> > > - There are specific GL for packaging source url from github which not are
> > >   followed. One result is a (too) anonymous source filename. Please adjust
> > >   to follow these GL:
> > > https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:SourceURL?rd=Packaging/
> > > SourceURL#Github
> > this project do not provides again a tarball with the characteristics that
> > request. and you can cosider this version as stable release. (latest
> > unstable is 0.10-SNAPSHOT)
> 
> I don't really follow you here. 
> 
> The version mgmt is in the pom.xml. But without both a tarball and a tag,
> there is no way to get an exact version of the code which corresponds to the
> pom.xml version. Which means that the only thing identifying the source is
> the commit hash.
> 
> The GL I referred to describes how to package a github source url for a
> specific git hash. In short, they apply.
> 
> Question then becomes how to apply them. There is some text on how to set
> the version field. Since you have the version in the sources, you can use
> that as Version:, applying the overall GL. So, again, the GL applies using
> the pom.xml version as Version: 
> 
> Bottom line: please apply the Packaging Source URL (github)  GL.
> 
> The root of this mess is the poorly managed upstream. What's missing is a
> git tag for each release. It would make a lot of sense of you filed this as
> an upstream issue. If you could get them to tag 0.9.9 everything would
> become so much clearer. Tagging releases is a well established best practise.


Spec URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections.spec
SRPM URL: http://gil.fedorapeople.org/reflections-0.9.9-3.fc20.src.rpm

- fix url taraball

-- 
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review





[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]