Please do not reply directly to this email. All additional comments should be made in the comments box of this bug report. Summary: Merge Review: bcel https://bugzilla.redhat.com/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=225610 ------- Additional Comments From pcheung@xxxxxxxxxx 2007-04-13 16:50 EST ------- (In reply to comment #6) > * The examples/Mini README probably shouldn't be marked as a %doc as it makes > more sense to just leave it in the Mini directory. Done > * The demo package probably shouldn't install things to > %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version} but to %{_datadir}/%{name}-%{version}/demo Fixed > * It seems strange that the demo package doesn't have any documentation > describing what the classes do and how to build them. But I guess the sources > don't have this information either Yeah, the upstream sources don't have any documentation either. > * The build file for the demo package is the build.xml for the whole project. > Perhaps this should be included in the demo package (or maybe a subset that > would only build the demos?) I've made the main package a Requires: for the demo package > * The manual subpackage just has the license file in there, there should be more > to the manual than this. maybe the manual only gets built if using maven? The docs/* stuff are built but doesn't get included in the package, I copied the LICENCE.txt to %{_docdir}/%{name}-%{version}, so that the docs/* stays in the package. New spec file and srpm at the same location. -- 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