https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1025052 --- Comment #4 from Jerry James <loganjerry@xxxxxxxxx> --- Thank you for the review, Mosaab. (In reply to Mosaab Alzoubi from comment #3) > I'm not a packager yet, But this review may help who want to take it: > > * Hope to fix issue #21 > * License BSD > * Source in SRPM match upstream one. e76d861e773169502cd3d6c5b122d536. > * Spec and contents is clean > * -javadoc don't require the main package Actually, it does, but it doesn't have the %{?_isa} that fedora-review seems to be looking for. But it shouldn't, since this is a noarch package. I think this is a bug in fedora-review. > * -javadoc must contain License if it be independ > * -javadoc must require jpackage-utils if it be independ Ah, good catch. I'm not going to change the license situation, because I don't intend to make the javadoc be independent. But the jpackage-utils Requires is necessary. I have added that, as well as a patch (submitted upstream) to fix issue 21. New URLs: Spec URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/javasysmon/javasysmon.spec SRPM URL: http://jjames.fedorapeople.org/javasysmon/javasysmon-0.3.4-2.fc21.src.rpm -- You are receiving this mail because: You are on the CC list for the bug. You are always notified about changes to this product and component _______________________________________________ package-review mailing list package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/package-review