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=521069 --- Comment #2 from Alexander Kurtakov <akurtako@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-03 10:52:58 EDT --- (In reply to comment #1) > Only issue: line 42 is too long :) Fixed. > > - md5sums match upstream > - licensing fine > - builds and installs fine > - macros sane > - naming good > - files okay > - rpmlint clean (maven warning is okay): > > $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/SRPMS/felix-osgi-obr-1.0.2-1.fc11.src.rpm > /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/felix-osgi-obr-1.0.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm > /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/felix-osgi-obr-javadoc-1.0.2-1.fc11.noarch.rpm > felix-osgi-obr.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc > /etc/maven/fragments/felix-osgi-obr > 3 packages and 0 specfiles checked; 0 errors, 1 warnings. > > As I said in bug #521067, 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. New sources: Spec URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/felix-osgi-obr.spec SRPM URL: http://akurtakov.fedorapeople.org/felix-osgi-obr-1.0.2-2.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