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=519051
Andrew Overholt <overholt(a)redhat.com> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Flag|needinfo?(overholt(a)redhat.c |
|om) |
--- Comment #2 from Andrew Overholt <overholt(a)redhat.com> 2009-08-24 15:39:40 EDT
---
(In reply to comment #1)
1. There is a BSD license at the top of the spec. Should the
licensing
add "and BSD"?
The License field is for the contents of the package, not the .spec.
2. The description for the javadoc sub-package should be:
This package contains the API documentation for %{name}.
Done.
The template has its group as Development/Documentation, not
Documentation.
That makes rpmlint whine.
3. The Java packaging guidelines state that there should be:
Requires: jpackage-utils
Fixed.
4. The following sections from the maven template of the Java
guidelines are missing.
%post
%update_maven_depmap
%postun
%update_maven_depmap
Oops :) Fixed.
http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/maven2-plugin-shade.spec
http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/maven2-plugin-shade-1.0-6.fc11.src.rpm
P.S. I think you're supposed to set the fedora-review flag to '?' while
you're
reviewing it.
--
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.