Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Review Request: ant-contrib-1.0-0.b2.1jpp - Collection of tasks for Ant https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=227027 pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx |vivekl@xxxxxxxxxx ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-02-13 12:41 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > > - for non-numerics (pre-release, CVS snapshots, etc.), see > > http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/NamingGuidelines#PackageRelease > > . The package must be named according to the Package Naming Guidelines. > > 0:1.0-0.b2.1jpp should comply to Fedora + JPackage exception guidelines: > Sorry. You dont need the epoch bump since the prerelease tag is alphabetic. > Could you please keep it at 0? > Done > > W: ant-contrib-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation > > The value of the Group tag in the package is not valid. Valid groups are: > > "Amusements/Games", "Amusements/Graphics", "Applications/Archiving", > > "Applications/Communications", "Applications/Databases", > > "Applications/Editors", "Applications/Emulators", "Applications/Engineering", > > "Applications/File", "Applications/Internet", "Applications/Multimedia", > > "Applications/Productivity", "Applications/Publishing", "Applications/System", > > "Applications/Text", "Development/Debug", "Development/Debuggers", > > "Development/Languages", "Development/Libraries", "Development/System", > > "Development/Tools", "Documentation", "System Environment/Base", "System > > Environment/Daemons", "System Environment/Kernel", "System > > Environment/Libraries", "System Environment/Shells", "User > > Interface/Desktops", "User Interface/X", "User Interface/X Hardware Support". > > > > W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%post rm > > W: ant-contrib-javadoc dangerous-command-in-%postun rm > > . Please apply the following: > > https://zarb.org/pipermail/jpackage-discuss/2007-February/011119.html > > > >> Fixed, please let me know if I've done it correctly. :) > Sounds good, but actually you no longer need the unversioned jar link. Delete it > and get rid of the unversioned link > Fixed that in javadoc and manual as well. > > X * package should own all directories and files > > + Since package is installing to %{_javadir} should add Requires(pre), > > Requires(postun) on jpackage-utils but if the javadoc handling is fixed then a > > simple requires is good enough > > > >> Require: jpackage-utils added > Also need Requires(postun) on each of the packages/subpackages add a Requires > and Requires(postun) on jpackage-util > Added > Please change these and then I will rebuild it in mock, other than that the > package seems OK to me. > > spec file and srpm can be found at: https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/207/piccolo.spec https://pcheung.108.redhat.com/files/documents/174/208/piccolo-1.04-2jpp.1.src.rpm -- Configure bugmail: https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug, or are watching the QA contact. _______________________________________________ Fedora-package-review mailing list Fedora-package-review@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-package-review