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 --- Comment #6 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-05-19 09:10:52 EDT --- Your URLs are internal to Red Hat :) Please post external ones. (In reply to comment #5) > - 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. Spot has said on another bug that .pom files are like .spec files so we don't need to worry about their licenses. > - 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. Okay (my maven ignorance is showing here :) > - the license field will likely need to be updated. Spot can offer guidance > here. > A: updated to License: Saxpath Good. I'll do a full review when the SRPM and .spec have been posted in a public place. -- 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