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=521067 Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Status|NEW |ASSIGNED CC| |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx AssignedTo|nobody@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx |overholt@xxxxxxxxxx Flag| |fedora-review? --- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-03 09:37:06 EDT --- Only issue: line 40 is too long - md5sums and sha1sums match - licensing good - naming fine - rpmlint clean: $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/SRPMS/felix-osgi-core-1.2.0-1.fc11.src.rpm /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/felix-osgi-core-1.2.0-1.fc11.noarch.rpm /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/felix-osgi-core-javadoc-1.2.0-1.fc11.noarch.rpm felix-osgi-core.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/felix-osgi-core 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. For those playing along at home, Alex and I discussed the possibility of using the Eclipse version of these OSGi classes. This would mean a tighter loop at a build level between Eclipse and Jetty. It also would mean porting work to bring Felix up to the different (newer) versions of these OSGi classes in Eclipse. At this time, it's probably easiest to have this separate, small implementation. Also, it may be best to coordinate with the JPackage folks to split their monolithic felix package like you've done so that there aren't file conflicts. At the moment, since Fedora doesn't explicitly support JPackage compatibility, this is probably okay. Longer term, it'd be nice to interoperate. -- 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