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=495411 --- Comment #5 from Orcan 'oget' Ogetbil <oget.fedora@xxxxxxxxx> 2009-04-14 18:30:57 EDT --- (In reply to comment #4) > (In reply to comment #3) > > > dnsjava.x86_64: W: file-not-utf8 /usr/share/doc/dnsjava-2.0.6/Changelog > > We need to fix this. "iconv" will help. > Off course I seen this. But I do not know from *what* encoding it should be > recoded. Enca also do not help me: > $ enca Changelog > Unrecognized encoding > Isn't it iso-8859-1 ? Just guessing. > I think it is not very big problem in any case. > > > ! There are some example .java files in the root of the tarball. Their usage > > are explained in the USAGE file. I think these .java files need to go to %doc > > (of the main package). Alternatively, you can build them and put them in > > %{_datadir}/%{name} or so. (You mention about these files in the %description > > too) > Ok, I put *.java into docs. > install -d %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ install *.java %{buildroot}/%{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}/ Just a notice: We generally pass a -p switch to install to preserve timestamps. But actually, you don't need to install them explicitly in %install It's enough to put *.java to %doc. Actually, when you put *.java to %doc, it will copy them one more time and the above installation will get overriden. > > * There is a tests directory. The README file mentions about building and > > running these compile tests. We should make a %check section and run these > > tests, if possible. > Tests added. > > > * README file says: > > "dnsjava is placed under the BSD license. Several files are also under > > additional licenses; see the individual files for details." > > I found that the files org/xbill/DNS/Tokenizer.java, > > org/xbill/DNS/ZoneTransferIn.java are licensed under MIT > > This makes the license BSD and MIT > I must place "BSD and MIT" into License tag? Or what I must do with it? > Yes. License: BSD and MIT > > ! Also these comments are not needed. They can be removed: > > #Epoch: 0 > > #Vendor: JPackage Project > > #Distribution: JPackage > Off course. I comment out it, but leave for historical reasons. Any > disadvantage from it? > No, it doesn't really matter. I just said that for making things cleaned up. > > > * These BR's seem unnecessary: jce, java-javadoc > Why? It comes from JPackage rpm and i do not touch this. > jce is provided by both java-1.6.0-openjdk and java-1.5.0-gcj. Adding BR:jce (without a version) will pull java-1.5.0-gcj, which is already being pulled by BR: java-gcj-compat-devel >= 1.0.31. Also, java-1.6.0-openjdk is pulled via java-devel >= 1.7 anyways. java-javadoc is not needed during the building of the package. The guidelines forbid unnecessary BR's. > > * BR: jpackage-utils is listed twice. > Fixed. > It's still there. I guess you removed R: jpackage-utils instead. Other than these, the package does not build with gcj. You need to add BR: java-devel >= 1.7 also R: java >= 1.7 (I'm confused. Didn't you have these before already? Did you remove them?) -- 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