https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1869270 --- Comment #3 from Mat Booth <mat.booth@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Fabio Valentini from comment #2) > Same here, it's not "safe" to use macros before they are defined. You should > move the %global preamble into an order (and place) such that everything is > definied when it's used (i.e. move javahl_version definition above its usage > in javahl_tag definition, move subclipse_tag definition below Version > definition). > Done > Possibly also move these two lines from %build into %prep to the rest of the > pom.xml file modifications? > > %pom_remove_plugin ":bnd-maven-plugin" base cmdline javahl svnkit > %pom_remove_plugin ":maven-jar-plugin" base cmdline javahl svnkit > Done > There's also a lot of dangling symlinks in > /usr/share/eclipse/droplets/subclipse/plugins/ that link to various JARs > shipped by other packages. > Should there be explicit "Requires: foo" for the packages providing the > actual JAR files? [list attached below] > No, the symlinks are satisfied by the generated requirement on svnkit and its transitive dependencies. These warnings are bogus IMO. Rpmlint could easily check for broken symlinks after installing the binary RPMs into a chroot, but it doesn't. For example, you can do this to make sure there are no broken symlinks: $ mock -r fedora-33-x86_64 --enablerepo=local --init $ mock -r fedora-33-x86_64 --enablerepo=local --install ./eclipse-subclipse-4.3.0-6.fc33.noarch.rpm $ mock -r fedora-33-x86_64 --shell <mock-chroot> sh-5.0# find -L /usr/share/eclipse/ -type l (output of "find" here will be empty if all symbolic links correctly resolve) > You also should include the Apache-2.0 license (either from javahl or > svnclientadapter) files with %license, and describe the license breakdown > above the License tag, with something along the lines of: > > # EPL-1.0: subclipse > # ASL 2.0: javahl and svnclientadapter > # CC-BY: ??? > License: EPL-1.0 and ASL 2.0 and CC-BY > > Huh, git archeaology reveals that more than 10 years ago this package used to ship the (CC-BY licensed) Subversion Book as documentation... The sub-package containing the book was obsoleted more than a decade ago and the license tag was never corrected. Amazing what a fresh pair of eyes can do for an old package... Fixed now: Spec URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/eclipse-subclipse.spec SRPM URL: https://fedorapeople.org/~mbooth/reviews/eclipse-subclipse-4.3.0-6.fc33.src.rpm -- 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 To unsubscribe send an email to package-review-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
