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=563480 --- Comment #3 from Mat Booth <fedora@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 2010-02-14 08:10:53 EST --- I assume you meant to post a link to aduna-commons-concurrent-2.6.0-2, rather than aduna-commons-text-2.6.0-2 ;-) Rpmlint shows: aduna-commons-text.x86_64: W: no-documentation aduna-commons-text.x86_64: W: non-conffile-in-etc /etc/maven/fragments/aduna-commons-text But I'm not worried about that: Upstream does not seem to include a copy of the licence to use as documentation and the other warning is expected because of the maven dep-map fragment. Overall, this is a very compliant package. Two things I would suggest are: 1. To have something that ensures no pre-compiled classes are shipped in the source jar and used during the build. Not because that is the case with this package, but because it is good practice for Java packages in general. Something like this in the %prep section would suffice[1]: find -name '*.class' -exec rm -f '{}' \; find -name '*.jar' -exec rm -f '{}' \; 2. To note that it is usual for sub-packages (i.e. the javadoc package) to have a fully versioned dependency on the main package: Requires: %{name} = %{version}-%{release} [1] Taken from the template in the Java packaging guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging:Java#ant_2 -- 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. _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review