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=464781
--- Comment #31 from D Haley <mycae(a)yahoo.com> 2009-02-19 08:52:29 EDT ---
Apologies for delay in the response, haven't had a chance to look at this in
the past few days.
SPEC URL:
http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/flexdock-10.spec
SRPM URL:
http://dhd.selfip.com/427e/flexdock-0.5.1-10.fc10.src.rpm
Scratch:
F9:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1139730
F10:http://koji.fedoraproject.org/koji/taskinfo?taskID=1139731
$ rpmlint ../SRPMS/flexdock-0.5.1-10.fc10.src.rpm flexdock.spec
../RPMS/i386/flexdock-0.5.1-10.fc10.i386.rpm
2 packages and 1 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings.
#Licence is MIT on their website, Apache in their LICENSE.txt
License: MIT and ASL 2.0
Wrong. LICENSE.txt is actually word-for-word MIT:
https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing/MIT#Modern_Style_with_sublicense
Fixed.
Doesn't build on F-9/x86_64 and F-9/i386 (java bug?).
Between changes from my earlier f-9 srpms to now, a new buildrequires was
needed. Added:
BuildRequires: ant-apache-regexp
Hence the build for F9 is now fixed.
That '/' at the end is not necessary. Also the patch file name
has a redundant
'patch' in it, same for others.
I don't see the problem with having such
things there, but to aid review
process I have removed these.
Why is the above necessary instead of:
echo "sdk.home=%{_jvmdir}/java-1.6.0" > workingcopy.properties
Changed. This was based upon a jpackage script.
BuildRequires: jpackage-utils
is listed twice.
Also see the attached patch for more cosmetic fixes.
Applied, with thanks.
Is java-1.6 (not older and not newer) strictly required?
No,
this was part of the hack. Changed to java-devel, java and %{_jvmdir}/java
--
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.