https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1243758 --- Comment #7 from Till Hofmann <hofmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #4) > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #3) > > [!]: Package must own all directories that it creates. > > Note: Directories without known owners: /usr/share/maven-poms > > /apacheds-jdbm, /usr/share/java/apacheds-jdbm > > > > Please fix this. > > This is a bug of fedora review tool. All owner/s directory are managed by > our java tools. > Please, see 1243758-apacheds-jdbm/files.dir files I'm not sure which java tools you're talking about. % rpm -qf /usr/share/java/apacheds-jdbm file /usr/share/java/apacheds-jdbm is not owned by any package % rpm -qf /usr/share/java/apacheds-jdbm/apacheds-jdbm1.jar apacheds-jdbm1-2.0.0-0.1.M3.fc22.noarch >From the Java packaging guidelines [1]: "All packages are required to own directories which they create (and which are not owned by other packages)" "By default, resulting JAR files will be installed in %{_javadir}/%{name}, therefore package needs to own this directory." Your package doesn't. Please add %dir %{_javadir}/%{name} to %files and something similar for the maven-poms dir. That's all I wanted to say in the first place. > > apacheds-jdbm.src: W: invalid-url Source0: apacheds-jdbm-2.0.0-M3.tar.xz > > > > Suggestion: You could use the upstream tarball of apacheds [1] and extract > > the sources from there. This seems more elegant to me, because you could > > specifiy a valid URL for the source, but I guess it's a matter of taste. > > This would also fix the missing License file issue. > > Do not exist a upstream taraball for this package. And this is not included > in apacheds 2.0.0.M20 src archive. You sure about this statement? Hmm ok if it's not included in the upstream tarball, then my comment doesn't make sense. At a first glance, it seemed like it's included, but I was wrong. So the svn export is fine with me. > > > Could you also please indicate in a comment in the Spec file that this > > package uses the jCharts variance of the BSD license. This would have helped > > sorting out the correct license. > > This package is a fork of http://jdbm.sourceforge.net/ the original files > are under BSD with attribution license. > See: http://jdbm.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/jdbm/jdbm/LICENSE.txt > or better: http://pkgs.fedoraproject.org/cgit/jdbm.git/ (no more available > for Fedora > 20) OK thanks for the information. I'm not sure if you understood me correctly: The license is fine. I just wished there'd been a comment like "Some files are licensed under the jCharts variant of BSD" so I could have understood the licensing more quickly. > > Open also a Bundling Exception https://fedorahosted.org/fpc/ticket/564 > until jdbm will be completely replaced by mavibot (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6) > (In reply to Till Hofmann from comment #3) > > Please do not add the License file yourself. > > this is the "normal" practice > Hmm I guess you're right, I misremembered the guidelines about missing license files. Although the Licensing guidelines say [2]: "Packagers who choose to do this should ensure that they have exhausted all attempts to work with upstream to include the license text as part of the source code, or at least, to confirm the full license text explicitly with the upstream, as this minimizes the risk on the packager." In my understanding this means that you should try to contact upstream and ask them to include the license file (which you did), and only if upstream does not respond, you should include the file yourself. But since the license is quite clear, directly including it is fine with me. (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #6) > > Spec URL: https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm.spec > SRPM URL: > https://gil.fedorapeople.org/apacheds-jdbm-2.0.0-0.2.M3.fc22.src.rpm This is still the old Spec file, isn't it? I don't see any difference. [1] https://fedorahosted.org/released/javapackages/doc/#_add_maven_depmap_macro [2] https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:LicensingGuidelines?rd=Packaging/LicensingGuidelines -- 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