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=607385
--- Comment #6 from Victor G. Vasilyev <victor.vasilyev(a)sun.com> 2010-06-30 09:03:50
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #5)
Other:
* javadoc subpackage should have requires on jpackage-utils (sorry I
didn't notice before)
Fixed. It is an example why review is need. I know
about that, but I've not
noticed it too.
* why "Prevent brp-java-repack-jars from being run." ?
AFAIK the brp-java-repack-jars is only needed for the arch-specific Java
packages only. [1]
I think, it should be usual practice for all pure-Java non-JNI packages until
current default behaviour of the rpmbuild is changed.
Because, it lets to :
* avoid problems like [2];
* reduce build time;
* be more closer to the original projects and expectations of their authors.
E.g. changing of the archiving options can have impact on performance of the
Java application/library.
[1]
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/java-devel/2008-September/003113...
[2]
https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=465664
* there is %{_mavenpomdir} macro you can use instead of
%{_datadir}/maven2/poms
Fixed.
You are correct, documentation on proper maven packages should be
improved, no argument there. Why I asked for maven build? I assumed
that's what upstream is using, and it's always best to use the same
build system as upstream unless there is good reason not to.
I absolutely agree
with all :-)
All in all package is APPROVED.
Third revision of the
package with the fixes mentioned above is prepared.
Spec URL:
http://victorv.fedorapeople.org/files/felix-osgi-foundation.spec
SRPM URL:
http://victorv.fedorapeople.org/files/felix-osgi-foundation-1.2.0-3.fc14....
--
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.