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 Yang Yong <yyang@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|needinfo?(yyang@xxxxxxxxxx) | --- Comment #5 from Yang Yong <yyang@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-18 02:15:13 EDT --- Spec URL: http://torweb.toronto.redhat.com/~yyang/saxpath/saxpath.spec SRPM URL: http://torweb.toronto.redhat.com/~yyang/saxpath/saxpath-1.0-1.3.jpp6.src.rpm POM URL: http://torweb.toronto.redhat.com/~yyang/saxpath/saxpath-1.0.pom - why are we shipping code that's been dead upstream for almost 5 years? This release is over 7 years old! A: some packages may still need this old saxpath - please add a URL for the POM file; is it acceptably licensed? A: according to http://www.saxpath.org/, "SAXPath uses an Apache-style open source license.", so I think it is acceptable. - I think you're missing some Requires and Requires(pre), Requires(post) on jpackage-utils for the maven scripts A: added - 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? A: according to pom file, the groupId is "saxpath", so the first argument of %add_to_maven_depmap should be "saxpath" too. - the license field will likely need to be updated. Spot can offer guidance here. A: updated to License: Saxpath -- 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