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: xml-commons-which - Which subproject of xml-commons https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=232557 pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Flag|fedora-review- |fedora-review+ ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-03-16 16:50 EST ------- (In reply to comment #3) > (In reply to comment #2) ... > Yeah, I don't know what is causing the 6 hour time stamp difference between the > two, this shouldn't be an issue since all the code is the same. I have updated > the sources so this should not be an issue anymore. Great! > > X keep old changelog entries; use judgement when removing (too old? > > useless?) > > should we get rid of the old changelog entries since this is now a new > > package and some of those may only apply to xml-commons-apis? > Ok, I removed them. Since I based this off the xml-commons package which is > split up I kept the old changelogs, but I guess this doesn't make much sense. Thanks. > > X file permissions should be okay; %defattrs should be present > > - do we need %defattr(0644,root,root,0755) twice in the first %files section? > The second one is removed. OK > > X run rpmlint on the binary RPMs > > rpmlint on mock built rpms: > > > > Please fix the incoherent-version-in-changelog warning (first .1 missing in > release) > Done Great! rpmlint on mock built binary rpms: [pcheung@to-fcjpp1 bsf-2.3.0]$ rpmlint /var/lib/mock/fedora-development-x86_64-core-pcheung/result/xml-commons-which-* W: xml-commons-which non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xml-commons-which non-standard-group Text Processing/Markup/XML W: xml-commons-which-javadoc non-standard-group Development/Documentation APPROVED -- 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