https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=873738
Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
CC| |mizdebsk(a)redhat.com
Assignee|nobody(a)fedoraproject.org |mizdebsk(a)redhat.com
Flags| |fedora-review?
--- Comment #2 from Mikolaj Izdebski <mizdebsk(a)redhat.com> ---
I didn't do a full review, just took a quick look at the spec file. There are a
few problems, that should be enough for now.
1. Pre-release packages should have the .svnXXX suffix in Release field, not in
Version. They should be "Version: 1.0.2" and "Release:
0.1.svn20121003".
See:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:NamingGuidelines#Pre-Release_pack...
2. License tag is wrong. Should be "License: Sequence"
See:
http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/legal/2012-November/002003.html
3. Javadoc package should not require the main package.
4. According this comment:
# I really don't understand why _mavendepmapdir doesn't work
as expected:
#%{_mavendepmapdir}
It should be %{_mavendepmapfragdir}
5. License file should be installed with javadoc package too.
6. %update_maven_depmap is unneeded. %post and %postun scriplets should be
removed (along with corresponding Requires).
7. Jar file should be installed unversioned, i.e. %{_javadir}/%{name}.jar.
Symlink should not be installed.
8. Uhe URL tag is supposed to be used by users, so it should contain address of
a home website, not SVN repo.
9. Packages should use upstream build method. Upstream uses gradle. Is there
any reason to use ant with custom build.xml instead?
10. There is "BuildRequires: jpackage-utils >= 0:1.6". Fedora ships version
1.6
(or later) since 2004-12-01. IMO there is no reason for versioned requires in
this case.
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.