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=475603 Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(tcallawa@xxxxxxxx | |om) | --- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-05 11:19:07 EDT --- Thanks, Andrew. Here are my responses to the flagged items. First the rpmlint complaints from comment #1. > jFormatString.src:104: W: libdir-macro-in-noarch-package %{_libdir}/gcj/%{name} This is a side effect of the standard spec file template for using gcj. I can't do anything about it (and there is actually nothing wrong). > jFormatString.src: W: non-standard-group Development/Libraries/Java Dozens of Fedora packages already use this group (it is derived from jpackage.org) and the Group name doesn't matter anyway. I don't see any reason to change it. This goes for the rpmlint complaints about the binary rpm, too. > jFormatString.src: W: non-coherent-filename > jFormatString-0-0.1.20081016svn.src.rpm > jFormatString-0-0.1.20081016svn.fc10.src.rpm That's just me being dumb in the way I copied the file to my web site. If you build it yourself, this won't happen. > jFormatString.src: W: strange-permission jFormatString-0.tar.bz2 0745 That is a strange permission. It looks like the file must have passed through a Windows machine on its way to my web site. Fixed. > X make sure lines are <= 80 characters > - please add a line continuation to fix this on line 69 Fixed. > * md5sum matches upstream > - the tarball I generated does not match but diff -uNr shows no differences > so I assume svn timestamp differences When you do an svn checkout, it goes into a freshly created directory. Tar then faithfully preserves the timestamp on that directory. For that reason, tarballs created from upstream SCM snapshots will never have matching checksums. I hadn't thought about checking with diff. That one goes into my bag of reviewer tricks. Thanks! > X license text included in package and marked with %doc > - this isn't the case. Perhaps since you're doing an SVN snapshot you can > include a coyp of it? Oops, that was an oversight on my part. But that's why we do package reviews, right? Fixed. So I guess we're just waiting for the license question to be resolved. Here are the new versions: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jFormatString/jFormatString.spec http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/jFormatString/jFormatString-0-0.2.20081016svn.fc10.src.rpm -- 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