Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: opengrok - A wicked fast source browser Alias: opengrok-review https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=433312 overholt@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|overholt@xxxxxxxxxx |lkundrak@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From overholt@xxxxxxxxxx 2008-04-15 16:08 EST ------- (In reply to comment #10) > (In reply to comment #9) > > > X specfile is legible > > - I'd rather see common_reqs split out and enumerated in both Requires and > > BuildRequires > > I thought this will save me from some errors and work when adding common > requires, but it's just a matter of personal taste. If you both think it doesn't > look well, I'll split it. It's not a blocker for us, so if you think it'll be easier to maintain, go for it :) > > Notes: > > > > - don't build with gcj at all because of this missing bit: > > > > [javac] import java.util.Scanner; > > [javac] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > [javac] The import java.util.Scanner cannot be resolved > > > > - remove gcj bits as the diff I'm attaching does > > Applied. I wonder if it's right that this didn't break the build? Yeah, it wasn't using libgcj's class library to build before. > > - re-name patches to match version (0.5 -> 0.6) > > I read somewhere, though I am not able to find the link now, that the version > number in patch name is one the patch was created against, and doesn't change > when it applies to newer upstream package. Okay, if it was generated against 0.5 then keep it. I guess my question is why it wasn't applied upstream :) I like to keep bugs and/or rationale in comments to denote why we're carrying patches ... but don't worry about it if you don't want to do it. > > - why don't you build a jrcs package and Require/BR it? > > AFAIK this is a fork of jrcs from times when it was part of Apache Commons and > is modified by OpenGrok developers. Currently development of jrcs development > continues in the place it did before, and I am not aware of any effort to put > OpenGrok modifications back there. Okay, well as long as it's building from source (as you have it doing), it's fine then. > > - why the big patch between 0.6 and this hg snapshot? if that's actually > > required, why not just use an hg snapshot tarball as SOURCE0 instead of 0.6 > > and patching? > > About the same reason kernel package does a thing like this. I updated the > package with new revisions quite rapidly and it would not make much sense to > waste space with new tarball until patch file has sane length. It can moreover > be compressed. Alright, I guess that's acceptable. > New package: > > http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/SRPMS/opengrok-0.6-8.hg275.fc8.1.src.rpm > http://people.redhat.com/lkundrak/SPECS/opengrok.spec Okay, just two more things: What's going on with this? javadoc: error - Error while reading file /home/overholt/rpmbuild/BUILD/opengrok-0.6-src/jrcs/src/java/org/apache/commons/jrcs/overview.html And I don't think it should be trying to access the internet using hg during the build: -hg-get-changeset: [exec] Execute failed: java.io.IOException: Cannot run program "hg": java.io.IOException: error=2, No such file or directory -- 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, or are watching someone who is. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review