[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Severity|normal |medium Priority|normal |medium Product|Fedora Extras |Fedora Version|devel |rawhide -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 Bug 191015 depends on bug 191014, which changed state. Bug 191014 Summary: Review Request: ganymed-ssh2 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191014 What|Old Value |New Value Resolution||NEXTRELEASE Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|ASSIGNED|CLOSED Resolution||NEXTRELEASE -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added Status|NEW |ASSIGNED AssignedTo|[EMAIL PROTECTED] |[EMAIL PROTECTED] OtherBugsDependingO|163776 |163778 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 13:21 EST --- Note that 1.0.6 is out, and I can no longer fetch 1.0.4 from upstream. I looked at the license and it seems acceptable to me, but it also doesn't correspond to anything rpnlint already knows about. I suggest just leaving things as-is and ignoring the rpmlint complaint. I also suggest ignoring the non-standard-group warning on the javadoc subpackage. W: javasvn invalid-license TMate License W: javasvn-debuginfo invalid-license TMate License W: javasvn-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: javasvn-javadoc invalid-license TMate License Other than that it does build fine in mock (with ganymed-ssh2 in a local repo) and looks OK. If you update to 1.0.6 I'll do a full review. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 14:43 EST --- Thanks... updated to 1.0.6 http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn-1.0.6-1.src.rpm http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn.spec -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO|163778 |163779 nThis|| --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-26 15:42 EST --- There's no reason to BuildReqires: coreutils; it's in the default buildroot. It would be pretty foolish to have a spec without cp and rm. rpmlint says: W: javasvn invalid-license TMate License W: javasvn-debuginfo invalid-license TMate License W: javasvn-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation W: javasvn-javadoc invalid-license TMate License All of which are OK. So no blockers. Review: * package meets naming and packaging guidelines. * specfile is properly named, is cleanly written and uses macros consistently. * dist tag is present. * build root is correct. * license field matches the actual license. * license is open source-compatible. License text included in package. * source files match upstream: fcb8db8a61cde8b5191ff6b1b87c5977 org.tmatesoft.svn_1.0.6.src.zip * latest version is being packaged. O BuildRequires are proper (redundant BR: coreutils) * package builds in mock (development, x86_64). O rpmlint has ignorable complaints. * final provides and requires are sane: javasvn-1.0.6-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm javasvn-1.0.6.jar.so()(64bit) javasvn = 1.0.6-1.fc6 = /usr/bin/rebuild-gcj-db ganymed-ssh2 = 209 java-gcj-compat = 1.0.33 libgcj.so.7()(64bit) libz.so.1()(64bit) javasvn-javadoc-1.0.6-1.fc6.x86_64.rpm javasvn-javadoc = 1.0.6-1.fc6 = (nothing) * shared libraries are present, internal to gcj; rebuild-gcj-db is called properly) * package is not relocatable. * owns the directories it creates. * doesn't own any directories it shouldn't. * no duplicates in %files. * file permissions are appropriate. * %clean is present. * %check is not present; not test suite upstream. * scriptlets present are OK (rebuild-gcj-db) * code, not content. * javadoc documentation split off to -javadoc subpackage. * %docs are not necessary for the proper functioning of the package. * no headers. * no pkgconfig files. * no libtool .la droppings. * not a GUI app. APPROVED -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-25 23:22 EST --- Updated: http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn.spec http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn-1.0.4-4.src.rpm * Sun Jun 25 2006 Robert Marcano [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1.0.4-4 - created javadoc subpackage - dependency changed from ganymed to ganymed-ssh2 -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 16:33 EST --- The only comment that was missing is: --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 19:06 EST --- updated http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn.spec http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn-1.0.4-3.src.rpm I applied the debuginfo workaround explained on bug #191014 Checked rpmlint warnings:, invalid-license TMate License - http://tmate.org/svn/license.html What to to about it, it is a BSD license with an added clause about the availiablity of the source code wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding for HTML files is not fixed because it is not needed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-14 00:35 EST --- We may have lost some useful comments here. It would be great if people could re-post anything still relevant. Thanks. -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 --- Additional Comments From [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2006-06-11 19:06 EST --- updated http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn.spec http://www.marcanoonline.com/downloads/fedora/package_submissions/subclipse/javasvn-1.0.4-3.src.rpm I applied the debuginfo workaround explained on bug #191014 Checked rpmlint warnings:, invalid-license TMate License - http://tmate.org/svn/license.html What to to about it, it is a BSD license with an added clause about the availiablity of the source code wrong-file-end-of-line-encoding for HTML files is not fixed because it is not needed -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn
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: javasvn https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=191015 [EMAIL PROTECTED] changed: What|Removed |Added OtherBugsDependingO||191017 nThis|| -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email --- You are receiving this mail because: --- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. ___ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@redhat.com http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review
