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 #3 from Jason Tibbitts <tibbs@xxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-03-24 22:38:23 EDT --- 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. 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 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. 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. -- 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