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=519051 Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED Flag|needinfo?(overholt@xxxxxxxx | |om) | --- Comment #2 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-24 15:39:40 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > 1. There is a BSD license at the top of the spec. Should the licensing > add "and BSD"? The License field is for the contents of the package, not the .spec. > 2. The description for the javadoc sub-package should be: > > This package contains the API documentation for %{name}. Done. > The template has its group as Development/Documentation, not Documentation. That makes rpmlint whine. > 3. The Java packaging guidelines state that there should be: > > Requires: jpackage-utils Fixed. > 4. The following sections from the maven template of the Java > guidelines are missing. > > %post > %update_maven_depmap > > %postun > %update_maven_depmap Oops :) Fixed. http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/maven2-plugin-shade.spec http://overholt.fedorapeople.org/maven2-plugin-shade-1.0-6.fc11.src.rpm P.S. I think you're supposed to set the fedora-review flag to '?' while you're reviewing it. -- 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