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=520500 --- Comment #4 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-08-31 16:37:29 EDT --- (In reply to comment #2) > - no differences in source I get vs. what's in the SRPM > X please make lines 19, 20, 90, and 95 < 80 characters Fixed. %add_to_maven_depmap line can't be fixed because this breaks the macro. > ? should we make the versioned BRs and Rs on maven2 be >= 2.0.8? Done. > X let's drop the with_maven/without_maven junk at the top Fixed. > - macros sane > - clean used appropriately > - licensing fine > - description and summary fine > X please add a changelog entry Done. > - builds fine > - rpmlint output is fine (doesn't like maven fragment in /etc and no files to > mark as documentation) > X please only own the fragment %{name} and specific pom > (JPP-maven-enforcer-rule-api.pom) Fixed. New sources: Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/maven-enforcer-rule-api.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/maven-enforcer-rule-api-1.0-0.1.a2.1.5.fc11.src.rpm -- 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