https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324020
--- Comment #11 from Tomas Repik <tre...@redhat.com> ---
(In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8)
> Issues:
> =======
> - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils
DONE
> - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build
Jar files are firstly removed and then replaced only with simlinks to
respective jar files allready installed in the system
> - If the package provides multiple JAR file, files SHOULD be installed in a
> %{name} subdirectory
DONE
> - JAR files MUST NOT include class-path entry inside META-INF/MANIFEST.MF
Any advice how to remove the entry?
> [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license.
ignore for now
> [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed.
DONE
> [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception.
> cassandra-3.5/src/java/org/apache/cassandra/utils/vint/VIntCoding.java This
> file is part of protocol-buffer project
> Please, add Provides: bundled(protobuf) = "protobuf version"
I don't think it is necessary, yes there is a protobuf header, but also there
is a comment saying VIntCoding.java: "Borrows idea from [1]" There is no
scource file called VIntCoding.java in protobuf sources [2]
> [!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel
Moved to clientutil subpackage
> [!]: Latest version is packaged.
obviously I know there is a newer version, if that is really necessary I'm
gonna do the 3.7 version but new versions are released pretty often
> [!]: %check is present and all tests pass.
I don't think there is anything to check
> [!]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI
DONE
> Rpmlint
ignored for now
[1] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/encoding#varints
[2] https://github.com/google/protobuf
--
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the bug.
You are always notified about changes to this product and component
_______________________________________________
package-review mailing list
package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
https://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@lists.fedoraproject.org
