https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1324020 --- Comment #11 from Tomas Repik <trepik@xxxxxxxxxx> --- (In reply to gil cattaneo from comment #8) > Issues: > ======= > - Packages have proper BuildRequires/Requires on jpackage-utils DONE > - Bundled jar/class files should be removed before build Jar files are firstly removed and then replaced only with simlinks to respective jar files allready installed in the system > - If the package provides multiple JAR file, files SHOULD be installed in a > %{name} subdirectory DONE > - JAR files MUST NOT include class-path entry inside META-INF/MANIFEST.MF Any advice how to remove the entry? > [!]: License field in the package spec file matches the actual license. ignore for now > [!]: License file installed when any subpackage combination is installed. DONE > [!]: Package contains no bundled libraries without FPC exception. > cassandra-3.5/src/java/org/apache/cassandra/utils/vint/VIntCoding.java This > file is part of protocol-buffer project > Please, add Provides: bundled(protobuf) = "protobuf version" I don't think it is necessary, yes there is a protobuf header, but also there is a comment saying VIntCoding.java: "Borrows idea from [1]" There is no scource file called VIntCoding.java in protobuf sources [2] > [!]: Package contains BR: python2-devel or python3-devel Moved to clientutil subpackage > [!]: Latest version is packaged. obviously I know there is a newer version, if that is really necessary I'm gonna do the 3.7 version but new versions are released pretty often > [!]: %check is present and all tests pass. I don't think there is anything to check > [!]: Packages are noarch unless they use JNI DONE > Rpmlint ignored for now [1] https://developers.google.com/protocol-buffers/docs/encoding#varints [2] https://github.com/google/protobuf -- 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://lists.fedoraproject.org/admin/lists/package-review@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx