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: ant-contrib - A collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=193894 ------- Additional Comments From j.w.r.degoede@xxxxxx 2006-06-29 11:54 EST ------- (In reply to comment #4) > Hi Hans, thanks for taking the time to review this. > > Here are the updated files: > http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ant-contrib.spec > http://people.redhat.com/ifoox/extras/ant-contrib-1.0-1.b2.src.rpm > > > These are all fixed except: > > W: ant-contrib class-path-in-manifest /usr/share/java/ant-contrib-1.0b2.jar > > Do you know what the problem with a Class-Path element in a jar's manifest is? > I'm not entirely sure why rpmlint is complaining here. > Nope, please ask / discuss this on f-e-l this is my first java package review. About your fixes, they mostly look good, but: * you now have this: %if %{gcj_support} if [ -x %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db ] then %{_bindir}/rebuild-gcj-db fi %endif Twice under %postun, please remove it once. * please dont use a patch like this: Patch3: ant-contrib-fileendings.patch instead do : "sed -i s/\r// <file1> <file2>" on the problem files. * You now have Release: 1.%{beta_number} that should be 0.1.%{beta_number}, so that you can use "Release: 1" for the final. (see wiki). * These must be removed (I missed them last time): Vendor: JPackage Project Distribution: JPackage > > These are all fixed as you described above. > As for the symlink, I'm not sure why there's a symlink from a versioned > docs directory to an unversioned one, but I decided not to remove it. I > did take out all the weirdness with %ghosting and removing the directory > and relinking. > OK. > This is done in some packages in FC and the reason is that these packages are > also built for RHEL, which currently doesn't use GCJ for java packages. It makes > it significantly easier to maintain a single spec. Although I do agree that it > makes the spec harder to read, I think the benefit for the maintainer of keeping > one spec file overweights that. > Thats a good reason, I've no problem with keeping gcj_support in that case. -- 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