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=581164 Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli@xxxxxxxxx> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Summary|Review Request: |Review Request: |maven2-plugin-timestamp - |maven-timestamp-plugin - |Provides formatted |Provides formatted |timestamps for maven builds |timestamps for maven builds --- Comment #4 from Guido Grazioli <guido.grazioli@xxxxxxxxx> 2010-04-19 09:14:16 EDT --- (In reply to comment #3) > Hmm, where are these guidelines? > I don't remember any requirements to name the plugins in this strange way. Only > reason for having a number of plugins with this odd name is because they are > coming from the maven2 srpm. Please revert to the original name you used which > matches the upstream name. > > "Package naming > > Packages MUST follow the standard Fedora Packaging/NamingGuidelines . Java API > documentation MUST be placed into a sub-package called %{name}-javadoc. " OK, i misunderstood that line: "Addon Packages (General) If a new package is considered an "addon" package that enhances or adds a new functionality to an existing Fedora package without being useful on its own, its name should reflect this fact. The new package ("child") should prepend the "parent" package in its name, in the format: %{parent}-%{child}. " while seeing all those maven2-plugin-{name}, i though i had to adhere to that naming convention. However, matching the upstream name does satisfy that guideline. Reverted files: http://guidograzioli.fedorapeople.org/packages/maven-timestamp-plugin/ -- 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