[Bug 191015] Review Request: javasvn

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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


tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|NEW                         |ASSIGNED
         AssignedTo|bugzilla-sink@xxxxxxxxxxxxx |tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx
OtherBugsDependingO|163776                      |163778
              nThis|                            |




------- Additional Comments From tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx  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@xxxxxxxxxx
http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Yosemite News]     [KDE Users]     [Fedora Tools]