https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1256377 --- Comment #5 from Jonathan Underwood <jonathan.underwood@xxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to Jerry James from comment #4) > Just to satisfy my curiosity, what was the point of changing the BR: > jpackage-utils to BR: javapackages-tools? It doesn't appear to me that any > of > the tools are actually used. > Simply that jpackage-utils was renamed to javapackages-tools which Provides jpackage-utils (afaics anyway). > It's a little odd that the -javadoc subpackage has a Group tag when the main > package does not. I suggest dropping the Group tag in -javadoc. > OK, will do. > There are two SHOULD items that you don't have to address, but, well, should. > - Ask upstream to include a license file. Well... as you know upstream doesn't distribute these as a packaged tarball or anything, simply making the two files available for download, so I'm not sure it makes much sense to ask. I'll mention it anyway, when I send the patch. > - Write a %check script > Will give that some thought. Many thanks for the review, and the work on the original package! -- 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