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=501385 --- Comment #6 from Rich Megginson <rmeggins@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-07-14 18:59:48 EDT --- (In reply to comment #5) > Bad: > - License tag states GPLv2 but the copyright state GPLv2+ > as the license for the project. Source files have been changed to use plain GPLv2. New version 1.1.4 Spec: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-admin-console.spec SRPM: http://rmeggins.fedorapeople.org/pkgreview/389-admin-console-1.1.4-1.src.rpm Source: http://port389.org/sources/389-admin-console-1.1.4.tar.bz2 md5sum 389-admin-console-1.1.4.tar.bz2 55c661be949c27b9ff2f754abbc2607f 389-admin-console-1.1.4.tar.bz2 sha1sum 389-admin-console-1.1.4.tar.bz229a4ba674b4f532c67ed1303162e5b232bcf9821 389-admin-console-1.1.4.tar.bz2 > - Why you put the jar files into %{_datadir}/dirsrv/manual/html/java? The way the console works is that it dynamically downloads (and caches) the jar file corresponding to the server version you are managing. This allows you to use the console to manage older and compatible newer versions of directory server and admin server. The location %{_datadir}/dirsrv/manual/html/java is where the admin server looks for the jar files when a request is made to download them to the console machine. The files under %{_datadir}/dirsrv/manual/html/java are not used directly - they are downloaded to $HOME/.fedora-idm-console (or now $HOME/.389-console) where they are loaded into the console. > - Because the manual seems to be very large, a separate doc > subpackage make sense Done. See above. -- 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