Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug. https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=472848 --- Comment #10 from Brennan Ashton <bashton@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2008-11-26 21:41:21 EDT --- (In reply to comment #8) > - MUST: The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines . > > The project is named "jeuclid". Why is the package named jeuclid-core? > > The Java packaging guidelines (https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Java) > say that you should follow the project's name and provide a symlink if the > commonly used jar name is different. > jeuclid is a larger project that contains more modules. This is the only core module. Should I package the project in one spec file and have the sub projects like core in it? http://jeuclid.sourceforge.net/jeuclid-core/index.html > - MUST: The package must meet the Packaging Guidelines . > > Group: Applications/Text > License: ASL 2.0 > > The above lines have trailing whitespace at the end. Fixed > # this patch points the ant to the correct jars > Patch0: jeuclid-core-build.patch > > You could use build-classpath or build-jar-repository instead of the above > patch. Yes and know, the main reason that I patch is that the build.xml file expects them to be symbolic linked to a lib folder in it that does not exist. It will not build if this is not there. I though while I was patching that, I might as well put the links to the jars in the file. I could do it with build-classpath, but the patch will have to stay for the lib dir issue. This is not really an upstream issue. > # this patch removes FreeHep support as per the build README > Patch1: jeuclid-core-FreeHep.patch > > You don't have to say "this patch", it's redundant. What you should say, > instead, is whether or not the patches have been sent upstream (and if not, > why). Took those extra words out. Added that FreeHep was an optional feature and would not be passed upstream. > > - MUST: The package must be licensed with a Fedora approved license and meet > the Licensing Guidelines . > > The following files have no licensing information, please ask upstream to > provide it (not a blocker). > $ licensecheck.pl -r . | grep -v Apache > ./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/LayoutTest.java: *No > copyright* UNKNOWN > ./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/ViewerTest.java: *No > copyright* UNKNOWN > ./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/ConverterTest.java: > *No copyright* UNKNOWN > ./jeuclid-core/src/test/java/net/sourceforge/jeuclid/test/DOMBuilderTest.java: > *No copyright* UNKNOWN > > The rest seems to be under ASL 2.0, thus OK. I will file an upstream bug and post. > > - MUST: The sources used to build the package must match the upstream source, > as provided in the spec URL. Reviewers should use md5sum for this task. If no > upstream URL can be specified for this package, please see the Source URL > Guidelines for how to deal with this. > > OK: > ff3690e649bf0ead5fd2a03c732dc1ce jeuclid-parent-3.1.3-src.zip > > - MUST: A package must own all directories that it creates. If it does not > create a directory that it uses, then it should require a package which does > create that directory. Refer to the Guidelines for examples. > > You should use > %{_javadir}/%{name}-%{version}.jar > instead of > %{_javadir}/* > in %files section. It'll let you detect stray files if they ever make their way > into buildroot in some future release. Fixed Sorry for the intermediate post, we had a mid-air bz collision. Spec URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/jeuclid-core.spec SRPM URL: http://bashton.fedorapeople.org/jeuclid-core-3.1.3-5.fc9.src.rpm -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review