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=468797 --- Comment #7 from Dominik 'Rathann' Mierzejewski <rpm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-01-14 19:27:36 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > Spec URL: > http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SPECS/JRosetta.spec > SRPM URL: > http://kwizart.fedorapeople.org/SRPMS/JRosetta-1.0.2-1.fc10.src.rpm > Description: A common base to build a graphical console > > Changelog > - Fix License (GPLv2 only) (was confirmed by phone call with upstream, the > shortname license can be seen in the MANIFEST of the jar files.) > - Fix Summary > - Update to 1.0.2 - previous patch merged upstream > - Rename to JRosetta Full review: rpmlint clean: $ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-rawhide-i386/result 2 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. Naming: Please rename it back to jrosetta. There is no good reason to have mixed-case name. In fact, no java package present in Fedora has mixed-case name. Pre-built binaries: The 1.0.2 source tarball contains pre-built binaries in build/*, please remove them in %prep and ask upstream to provide a source-only tarball, if possible. 1.0.1 was shipped without those binaries and the tarball was half the size. Source MD5 matches upstream: ef0f9208202762c93c8c415d8472aa76 jrosetta-1.0.2-GPL.zip ef0f9208202762c93c8c415d8472aa76 JRosetta-1.0.2-GPL.zip Other than that, it seems fine. -- 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. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review