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=499539 Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |dbhole@xxxxxxxxxx, | |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review?, | |needinfo?(tcallawa@xxxxxxxx | |om) --- Comment #2 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-07 11:03:26 EDT --- Spot: this package contains source files with the following in their header: http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/saxpath-license.txt What should be put in the license field in the .spec? ===================================================== Some preliminary questions and comments for Yang: - why are we shipping code that's been dead upstream for almost 5 years? This release is over 7 years old! - please add a URL for the POM file; is it acceptably licensed? - I think you're missing some Requires and Requires(pre), Requires(post) on jpackage-utils for the maven scripts - the maven example in the packaging guidelines uses org.apache.maven as the first argument to %add_to_maven_depmap but this package uses "saxpath". Should it be fully-qualified? - the license field will likely need to be updated. Spot can offer guidance here. -- 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