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(a)redhat.com changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssignedTo|overholt(a)redhat.com |lkundrak(a)redhat.com
------- Additional Comments From overholt(a)redhat.com 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.
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.