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=462560
--- Comment #5 from John Guthrie <guthrie(a)counterexample.org> 2009-03-31 23:54:52
EDT ---
(In reply to comment #3)
FYI, the first and third rpmlint issues above aren't something we
care about.
As for the second, you should generally not use "Epoch: 0" in a Fedora package.
The Epoch: 0 has been removed.
And to address the question in comment #1, the answer depends on
whether
upstream believes that version 1.1.4b actually exists. Some upstreams do tag
releases but don't worry about generating tarballs; other upstreams might make
a tag but wouldn't want to get bug reports for a version they didn't release.
So you need to ask them.
Some other comments:
Please remove the commented cruft from the specfile. (Well, you can't remove
the horrible license block from the top, of course, but you can remove the
other stuff that just clutters
Done.
If you are going to use to use all of those macro forms (%{__cp} and
such), you
need to use them consistently. Which means bare "ln" and "mv" should
not be
used. The spec file looks much cleaner if you just don't use them, but that's
up to you.
I converted everything to bare commands.
Why move the pre-build jars to "jar.no" instead of just
deleting them? You can
delete them all with a single find command, so your %prep section could just be
two lines.
Done.
I have posted a new spec file:
http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/f10/xmlpull-api.spec
I have also posted a new SRPM:
http://www.guthrie.info/RPMS/f10/xmlpull-api-1.1.4b-3.fc10.src.rpm
These are still using the same source. I need to verify that the source code
is still up to date. If it is not, then I will be posting a new SRPM with new
source tomorrow.
--
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.