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=522727 --- Comment #1 from Andrew Overholt <overholt@xxxxxxxxxx> 2009-09-11 10:41:46 EDT --- X let's put a version requirement on maven2-common-poms ? should we add versions to other BRs/Rs? X need changelog entries X need %post/%postun requires on jpackage-utils X LICENSE.txt and all other licensing text conflicts; remove LICENSE.txt and report upstream? - %files good - sources match upstream - naming good - macros fine - sources match - builds fine - rpmlint will be fine once changelog entries added: $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/SRPMS/maven-plugin-exec-1.1-1.fc11.src.rpm maven-plugin-exec.src: E: no-changelogname-tag $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/maven-plugin-exec-1.1-1.fc11.noarch.rpm maven-plugin-exec.noarch: E: no-changelogname-tag maven-plugin-exec.noarch: W: no-documentation maven-plugin-exec.noarch: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/maven-plugin-exec $ rpmlint /home/overholt/rpmbuild/RPMS/noarch/maven-plugin-exec-javadoc-1.1-1.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