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=507916 --- Comment #6 from steve <steve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-02 11:09:17 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > There's not much to this package. You're right that the dist tag isn't > necessary, but do keep in mind that not having it will not reduce download time > as each release is signed with a different key (and hence the packages are > different anyway), and you will be responsible for making sure that the release > you push to F11 has a different version than what you push to F10 (and from > what you push to devel). But that's up to you; the dist tag only makes this > convenient. Just don't be surprised when you get "tag already exists" errors. > I've added the dist tag back to the spec. > Packaging-wise there's not much to talk about; the package just unpacks a > tarball and drops it under /usr/share/doc. One issue that bothers me, though, > is that the directory isn't versioned, unlike essentially every other directory > in /usr/share/doc. The package I'd compare this against, diveintopython, > versions its directory. Did you consider doing that? > Sounds reasonable. Done this too. New spec and srpm are at: Spec URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SPECS/javanotes.spec SRPM URL: http://lonetwin.net/yum/SRPMS/javanotes-5.1-2.fc10.src.rpm > The package review process needs reviewers! If you haven't done any package > reviews recently, please consider doing one. Sure, will pick at least a couple up. thanks, - steve -- 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