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=520501 Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #2 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-31 16:17:56 EDT --- - naming and licensing fine X please wrap lines 47, 104, and 108 at <= 80 characters X please add a changelog entry X please only own the fragment %{name} and specific pom (JPP-maven-archiver.pom) X please drop the with_maven/without_maven stuff at the top of the .spec - sources fine (I get no differences between my export and the one in the tarball) ? should we make the maven2 R/BR >= 2.0.8? ? let's make the description "The Maven Archiver is used by other Maven plugins to handle packaging." - cleaning done appropriately - builds fine - macros good - rpmlint output is fine: $ rpmlint maven-archiver-2.2-1.fc11.src.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. $ rpmlint maven-archiver-2.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm maven-archiver.noarch: W: no-documentation maven-archiver.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven-archiver 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 2 warnings. $ rpmlint maven-archiver-javadoc-2.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm 1 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 0 warnings. -- 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